Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
==Violations==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
===User:] reported by ] (Result:)===
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
] violation on {{Article|World Wide Fund for Nature}}. {{3RRV|Chadbryant}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
'''Comments:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
User Chadbryant has filed an erroneous 3RR report while violating the rule himself. He also mischaracterizes the information, which has been noted by other Misplaced Pages users besides myself. His behavior has been curt, unresponsive and somewhat harassing. Any help in this matter will be appreciated. Thank you.
# {{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:'''
:''Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts '''after''' the third within a 24 hour period (not calendar day); it also does not include self reverts, and reverts to deal with simple vandalism''
:- ] 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result:)===
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
] violation on {{Article|World Wide Fund for Nature}}. {{3RRV|24.215.152.197}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
Time report made: 07:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
'''Comments:'''
Anon user timed his fourth revert to narrowly avoid the 24-hour period. His reverts to ] to insert similar inaccurate information resulted in a semi-protect for that article. This user has become increasingly confrontational on several talk pages, and has previously stated under another anonymous account that he refuses to register for an account so that he can avoid any blocks or other sanctions. - ] 07:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
] 08:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)The above user misrepresents my comments, which remain on the talk page. The above user is not only reverting correct information, but violated the same 3RR rule himself on August 10, which can be seen on the above page's edit history. He will not explain his actions. Any help that can be provided will be appreciated.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
===] reported by User:] (Result: Warning)===
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
] violation on {{Article|List of best-selling music artists}}. {{3RRV|194.73.101.6}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
* Previous version reverted to, if applicable: n/a
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Time report made: 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
'''Comments:'''
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:OK, we should have reported this a bit earlier but ] had tried to take a more constructive approach ; however, this appears to have failed --] 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::The violation has been a bit far back, and they haven't been formally warned, so I gave them a warning using {{tl|3RR}}. -- ] ] ] ] ] 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::{{AN3|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result:)===
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
] violation on {{Article|Swift Vets and POWs for Truth}}. {{3RRV|Crockspot}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* Warned by ] on
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
# {{diff2|1268002110|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
# {{diff2|1267995715|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1267994453|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Time report made: 00:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
'''Comments:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
===] reported by User:] (Result:)===
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
] violation on {{Article|United Devices Cancer Research Project}}. {{3RRV|MoonFlute}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}
* Previous version reverted to:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
#
#
#
#
'''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:'''
Time report made: 08:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
*:
*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{AN3|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
: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)
'''Comments:'''
This is my first 3RR violation report. I realised later that in my zeal yesterday, I broke 3RR myself, but I see that MoonFlute continues to persist today. I will hold back and let others sort this one out. --] 19:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
'''Comment:'''
The user has continued to persist:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
--] 14:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
===] reported by User:] (Result:72 Hour block)===
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
] violation on ]. ]: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
## {{diff2|1268186883|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
* 1st revert:
## {{diff2|1268202556|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
* 2nd revert:
## {{diff2|1268202677|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
* 3rd revert:
## {{diff2|1268203165|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
* 4th revert:
## {{diff2|1268204621|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
* 5th revert:
## {{diff2|1268204745|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
* 6th revert:
## {{diff2|1268204943|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
* 7th revert:
## {{diff2|1268205104|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
* 8th revert:
## {{diff2|1268208200|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
*
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Comments:'''
*As a novice user and my first 3rr report I am certain I have made formatting mistakes, My apologies.--] 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
* the user in question may have done this on other occasions and may also be using sockpupets, he never acknowledges other users comments, and seems to be completely unwilling to compromise. Further more his relentless edit warring seems to have brought any constructive additions to a halt.--] 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
*Also as a junior member I am quite inept at this matter so I need an admin to take this out of my hands.--] 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
* the user flayer seems to be an unregistered but named user.--] 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
*Lengthy block issued on my part due to severity and persistence of reverts in this case. ]]]<small>]</small> 04:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Please note that there ''must'' be 4 reverts listed - reports with only 3 will be removed. The "previous version reverted to" is there to show that the first revert really is a revert - it should be filled in to a previous version of the page which the first revert reverts to.
#
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===] reported by User:] (Result:)===
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
] violation on ]. ]:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
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.
The user is very familiar with the 3RR rule.
* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
===] reported by User:<font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> (Result: 12h)===
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)
] violation on {{Article|Judith_Butler}}. {{3RRV|Kmaguir1}}:
:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
:]
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
:"""
*
:] 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)
Time report made: 02:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
::Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
::Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
::I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
::3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with ] (]) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}}. This report is a mess. ] (]) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment ] (]) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{re|NotQualified}} Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--] (]) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. ] (]) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
*::::# I add templates to an article with faults
*::::# The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
*::::# I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
*::::# They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
*::::# I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
*::::# Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
*::::# I notify the user
*::::# I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
*::::# Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
*::::# You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
*::::I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
*:::::That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
*:::::I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
*:::::I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. ] (]) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
'''Comments:''' User repeatedly inserts poorly worded, unencyclopedic, and disparaging "criticism" section out of apparent (as stated on talk page and numerous project pages) animosity towards biography subject. Also semi-vandalizes other section to contain rambling digressions, and plays shennanigans with NPOV and other spurious and unexplained tags. But the wild reverting to the "criticism" rejected by all other editors is the main thing.
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
12h ] 08:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
===] reported by ] (Result: 8h)===
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
] violation on {{Article|Semitic}}. {{3RRV|Myriam457}}:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
# {{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:'''
Reverts (multiple edits per revert, so only first edit included):
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here:
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
*
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Note that this same user made similar edits to ].
:'''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)
:Blocked for 8 hours by ]. ] (]) 21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
===] reported by ] (result: 12 hrs)===
:And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. ] (]) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. ] (]) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. ] (]) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at ], not one as you claim. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. ] (]) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article ']' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
] violation on {{Article|Great_power}}. {{3RRV|Nobleeagle}}:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
Reverts (multiple edits per revert, so only first edit included):
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
This user reverts edit after edit back to his original, POV verson.
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Time report made: 06:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Diffs please not versions ] 08:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
: There you go. ] 08:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
::12 hours. ] (]) 18:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===] reported by ] (result: 12 hrs)===
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
] violation on {{Article|Great_power}}. {{3RRV|Gerdbrendel}}:
Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Reverts (multiple edits per revert, so only first edit included):
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
This user reverts edit after edit back to his original, POV verson.
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
Time report made: ] 07:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
:This user has insluted me and ] several times and is trying to "come back" at me after I reported him to the personal attacks notice board, or "running to the Destapo" as he calls it (I'm German). He has left vicious attacks on the ] talk page and wants to push his OR despite recent consensus among myself and other users (You will find that in the archives on that talk page). Also, I am not reverting to my version as I have never conducted any major revisions on the article. Thank you for understanding. Please see my report on the Personal attack notive board. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 07:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::Absolute nonsense. You and your buddy have pushed your political views with a vengeance. This is not what Wiki is for. You accept no compromise, but go about degrading Nations which you are not from. When others state Germany or India are not paradise, it is a "personal attack". Well what you all have said about other Nations is the same, so report yourselves if you are honest. You and Nobleeagle consistently revert any changes you do not agree with. "Vicious attacks"? Give me a frakin break. You are hyper-sensitive and making such reports just wastes admin times. Wiki is not here for YOUR personal soapbox and when others disagree you run to the "police". That is flat out unethical. You also have to play by the rules. ] 08:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Diffs please not versions ] 08:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
: There you go. ] 08:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
::12 hrs. ] (]) 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on {{Article|Great power}}. {{3RRV|71.106.195.5}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Time report made: 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Comments:''' This pattern goes on for '''FOUR''' more reverts within an hour's time prior to the 4th revert back that I've included here. Multiple editors have reverted this same IP, and other subnet IPs prior to this one within the past 24 hours suggesting it is the same user. Instead of seeking consensus, this editor chooses to force a revert war upon the article over the issue. Their tit-for-tat above is only because at this point, this user's editors are being considered vandalism (as they are ignoring the consensus) and those reverts do not fall under 3RR. No 3RR warning was given, since the user knows about 3RR having tried to use the system against 2 other editors directly above.
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That is because {{u|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Shecose}}, {{tqq|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Oh, they were certainly all me. Listen, you are taking sides here, this is clear -- and utterly unfair. I have seeked consensus and others including me have tried to reason with these two. Why their actions are golden, and others are evil, that is quite perplexing. If you follow the discussions they simply hold their line. Is this how Wiki is run now? Who ever can push for their political beliefs hard enough wins? I said multiple times, include all G7 nations. These are the most wealthy seven industrialized nations on Earth. But, no. They slander Italy, but when the tables are turned, they run and say "personal attack". Watch who you back up, you may eventually regret it. ] 08:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*I realize the policy states, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts'', right? '''This is three, not more than three.''' It shows the desperation. ] (]) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{u|Shecose}}, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ] (]) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
24h ] 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
:Thanks, but this user is now editing as {{IPvandal|71.105.97.133}} in order to ignore their 24h block. ] 08:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::You are the vandal. You are even changing edits which were agreed upon, because you are ignorant. ] 08:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
# "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
# "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24 hrs)===
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
] violation on {{Article|2006 Qana airstrike}}. {{3RRV|62.163.161.226}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
#: "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
# "Lady Saso: Reply"
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
* Previous version reverted to: This is a diff showing the first addition of the material
# "Lady Saso: New Section"
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
# "Lady Saso: Reply"
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*(aversion,notadiff,asthiswasthe first edit to the talk page)
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
Time report made: 13:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
:Blocked by ] for 24 hrs. ] (]) 18:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
:Ha. We're alternating... ] 18:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think ] might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within after being inactive since based off their ].
===] reported by User:] <sup>]</sup> (Result: 24 hrs)===
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
] violation on {{Article|People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals}}. {{3RRV|Skinmeister}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer informed) ==
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Time report made: 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:''' Second time in a few days. Last time received 24hours. Has reverted more times than those above too. (But different subject matter). Refuses to discuss it, just reverts calling the consensus led changes 'vandalism'.-] <sup>]</sup> 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:<s>Blocked for 12 hours. ] (]) 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)</s>
#
#
#
::Rather embarassing. I hit the the block log and block link on the wrong user. Per extensive block history, upping the block length to 24 hours. ] (]) 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:FunkyFly (Result: 24hrs)===
] violation on {{Article|Macedonia}}. {{3RRV| 125.244.186.2}}:
*Previousversionrevertedto:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Time report made: 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
The user has been rearranging the links to other articles without discussing previously reached agreement on the talk page. ] 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Blocked for 24 hours. ] (]) 18:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
:{{u|Theonewithreason}}, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24hrs)===
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
] violation on {{Article|Roy Moore}}. {{3RRV|Donahue}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sillypickle123}}
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Time report made: 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268583865|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268451301|21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268450870|21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268449472|21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268448980|21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Comments:''' The "Previous version reverted to" field above includes the substantive text that was reverted to; minor formatting edits to a picture's placement in the article were made between that version and the first revert. However, the action was essentially a revert since it served to replace text that had been removed per discussion on the article's talk page. The warning I placed on the user's talk page was not the {{tl|3RR}} template (did not know about that template), but contains the same general text and warning. -- ''']''' (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268447335|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
:<s>It appears both of you have violated the 3RR, but I'm not sure blocking either of you would be very useful.</s> Because Donahue doesn't appear to have explained or discussed his edits after being requested to, I've reverted his latest edit and protected the page for the moment. ] 22:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268463321|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
::My mistake; you didn't violate the 3RR. Donahue has been blocked for twenty-four hours. ] 22:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I kept an eye on it, didn't want to go over the limit myself....-- ''']''' (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 23:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===] reported by User:<font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> (Result: No block)===
# {{diff|oldid=1268447335|diff=1268451519|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
] violation on {{Article|Judith_Butler}}. {{3RRV|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE}}:
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
* Previous version reverted to: I do not understand what this means--all the evidence needed for the 3RR is in the history--one could not claim that it was not in fact reverted 4 times--the criticism section in all of these 4 reverts was substantially altered.
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) : N/A
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
Time report made: 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Comments:''' User claimed correctly that I violated 3RR rule, thus I was blocked. User him/herself, as evidence here shows, violated 3RR rule as well. He/she did not fix "obvious vandalism" as the requirements for exceptions to the 3RR in that section state, he/she participated in an edit war destroying my work for no solid Misplaced Pages reason, he/she did not supply a solid Misplaced Pages reason but instead a reason buffeted only by vague claims on the talk page. Therefore, in the absence of the satisfaction of the obvious vandalism exception, and this wasn't vandalism at all, just a more extensive explanation of a valid criticism, the 3RR was broken, and no other exceptions qualifies. -] 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:Firstly, the last three diffs look like attempts at a compromise compared to the first one (which removed the paragraph in question completely); secondly, you didn't inform Lulu of the 3RR, so she could have violated it unwittingly. That said, she shouldn't really be using popups to revert during content disputes. ] 22:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268697942|02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
# {{diff2|1268688649|01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
# {{diff2|1268687321|01:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=1268684554|diff=1268686155|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268685840|01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
## {{diff2|1268686155|01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::On the first matter: it wasn't a compromise, because in the history of the page, both versions had been offered and edited by me, and so both, the deletion as reversion, and the three abbreviated sections as reversion, qualify as four reverts from the longer version within a 24 hours period. Secondly, he/she informed ME of the 3RR, and I was blocked arbitrarily without another edit (except adding a NPOV tag)--so while I was warned and then blocked not given a chance to heed the warning, he/she can't use the "no-warning" as a defense, as he/she is the one who warned me about the matter--not that it made much difference to the administrator who blocked me that I had only been warned, and not edited (except the NPOV tag) after the warning. -] 22:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268688594|01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "]Created page with '== January 2025 == ] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> You didn't read the ] carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
===] reported by User:] (Result:1 week block)===
# {{diff2|1268690605|01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1268694009|02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1268695553|02:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
] violation on ]. ]
*1st reversion:
*2nd reversion:
*3rd reversion:
*4th reversion:
*5th reversion:
*6st reversion:
Time report made: 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
The user was not following the ] correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! ] (]) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
:THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. ] (]) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
This potential sock puppet of Flayer has gone about edit warring on the exact same article flayer recently reverted, if he is a indeed a sockpuppet then he certainly is familiar with 3rr.--] 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] (]) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*Likely sockpuppet of Flayer, who I blocked for 72 hours yesterday for reverting this same article, to the same version as the above IP keeps reverting, eight times in less than one day. My patientce is running thin, and because of ongoing anon vandlaism, I have sprotected the page. ]]]<small>]</small> 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: Protection)===
] violation on {{Article|Antiwar.com}}. {{3RRV|75.2.245.222}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to: Cannot be filled. They are not straight reverts, rather edits that result in reverting to a version that is the same NPOV over and over
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Just look at the edit history
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
] 00:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
''2006-08-07T01:32:57 Bishonen (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Antiwar.com: IP edit warring'' ] 07:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on {{Article|War on Terrorism}}
] violation on {{Article|Template:War on Terrorism}}
And probably others. He just came off of a vandalism block. He's been warned numerous times.
*1st Revert
*2nd Revert
*3rd Revert
*4th Revert
Also, did this template today:
*1st
*2nd
*3rd
*4th
He's been warned. He's been blocked. He comes back and does the same thing every day. His talk page is sprotected because of warning vandalism. It's getting old. --] 07:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
24h ] 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on {{Article|Human rights in Israel}}. {{3RRV|Oiboy77}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 17:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
I have tried to engage this user in dialogue on multiple occasions, and I constantly feel stymied. His edit summary notwithstanding, he has reverted (full or partial) multiple times to a version which does not treat Israelis and Palestinians equally. He had been warned, and had been blocked for 3RR before, so he is cognizant of the policy. I am not blocking him myself as I believe that is improper as I have been involved in this spate of reverts, although his violation is rather clear. Thank you. -- ] 17:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Another revert. Is anyone going to look at this, or must I take care of it myself? -- ] 19:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
*The third is not a revert, but the other four are. 24 hours. ] (]) 21:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: no block)===
] violation on {{Article|Chilean coup of 1973}}. {{3RRV|Bertilvidet}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
] 18:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments'''
User refuses to discuss reverts on the talk page. ] 18:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:I am sorry, but yes in my eagerness I breached the 3RR rule. However, I realized it and reverted my self immediately, even before this complain was posted. See ]. I plea for forgiveness. ] 18:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Self-reverted; no block. Please be more careful in future ] 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on {{Article|Chilean coup of 1973}}. {{3RRV|71.64.131.229}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 17:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' Also, maybe an administrator would run a check user test for this anon user and ], as the anon happened just to take over the reverts when CJK reached his three controversial reverts. ] 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
::Are no administrators watching this page? However it seems that the anon user ceased editing, and ] immediately after resumed editing. ] 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Stupid me, I placed this post at the top of the page. Now moved to the bottom of the article ] 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC).
24h ] 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on {{Article|Greenhouse gas}}. {{3RRV|24.166.142.27}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* 0th edit:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 18:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
* Anon doesn't talk; reverted by 3 of us.
::Blocked for twenty-four hours. ] 18:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:]%% (Result: No block)===
] violation on {{Article|Indian caste system}}. {{3RRV|BhaiSaab}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* Vandalism:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
He said that the material was copyrighted, but only one paragraph came from the supposed site . He deleted the whole section anyway even when confronted by a third editor ] who stated "no reason given to delete well-sourced and relevant material".
Time report made: 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
*All edits were removing simple vandalism (inserting copyrighted material). The entire section is copyrighted from the website quoted above as well as . See the talk page of the article for details. Pecher did not realize the material was copied from other websites and reverted my removal of the copyrighted material because of that. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
*] has now been blocked for continuing to reinsert copyrighted material. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
*:Some of the material is copyrighted, but not all. (Example: The paragraph beginning "The Ajlaf...") However, as BhaiSaab was making a good faith effort to remove copyrighted material, I will not block this time, but another revert would be considered negatively. ] (]) 21:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
*::Actually that sentence "The Ajlaf on the other hand are the Indian converts..." is in . The other parts of the same paragraph are from .Thank you for not blocking. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
*I think that all of the text was copyrighted; all of the text is a subset of the plagiarised text, (some sentences are omitted or truncated), and I think you two guys should stop accusing each other of vandalism, as it brings neither of you credit -quite clearly there is no vandalism by either parties. ''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 05:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it at the bottom of this page!!-->
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on {{Article|Kosovo}}. {{3RRV|208.3.69.196}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
#15:12, 7 August 2006
#17:35, 7 August 2006
#19:57, 7 August 2006
#20:09, 7 August 2006
#21:37, 7 August 2006
'''Warning''':
'''Comment''': Has also been reverting, warring and making personal attacks on other pages.
Time report made: 21:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
24h - 3rr aggravated by incivility ] 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: No apparent violation)===
] violation on {{Article|Chris Craft (Formula One)}}. {{3RRV|Bretonbanquet}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
Not clear why 1st rv is rv ] 07:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:Because he changed "English" to "British", and then did the same on 3 further occasions. This is a rather obtuse campaign being conducted by Cornish nationalists (see ]), who are, throughout the entire Misplaced Pages project, trying to remove all references to Cornwall being a ]. (They want it to have the status of a ].) Whatever the merits of their campaign (and I for one am sympathetic), Misplaced Pages must stick to facts, and however much they hate it, ] is a part of ]. Whatever the merits of the arguments on either side, ''breach of 3RR is not going to improve the situation''. --] 09:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::That does not answer the question. To ] a page is to undo the actions of another editor. If nobody had ever changed "British" to "English" on the page before, then changing "English" to "British" was not a revert. To violate the three-revert rule requires four reverts. Ergo, if the first reported diff was not a revert, there has been no violation. ] (]) 10:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: Semiprotected)===
] violation on {{Article|Wizard: The Comics Magazine}}. {{3RRV|64.172.142.95}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
] violation on {{Article|eksi_sozluk}}. : <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
'''Comments:'''
User has repeatedly added Internet drama/gossip/uncited criticism to this article since June 15, reverting at least once a day. Today, he reverted three times. This was the only place I knew to report this. --] 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:The user is appearently part of troll group that were kicked out of the Wizard message boards or some such, and now plan and gossip about internet trolling at issue9mm.com. They bragged about this particular vandalism here and here . User IPs 71.159.217.57, 24.151.251.178 and 64.172.142.154 have also joined in. They all appear to be IPs unique to the vandals, and it would be no great loss to ban all 4. ] 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::At the very least, the article should be protected against unregistered users.
:::user just did it again. This has been going on for a few months, a probation won't be effective. ] 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:Article has been semiprotected, although not by me. ] (]) 10:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h block)===
] violation on {{Article|Shao Kahn}}. {{3RRV|OrangeGum}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
User is also engaging in seriously bad behavior (check his edit summaries and .)
Would have been blocked for 3RR but ''2006-08-08T03:51:18 Crazycomputers (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "OrangeGum (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (warning removal)'' ] 07:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: Invalid)===
] violation on {{Article|2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict}}. {{3RRV|Italiavivi}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert: reverted confirmed killed # to 53
* 2nd revert: reverted IDF claim of killed to 300-400
* 3rd revert: reverted IDF claim of killed to 300-400
* 4th revert: reverted IDF claim of killed to 300-400
* 5th revert: reverted IDF claim of killed to 300-400
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* User was warned about 3RR in edit summary at 06:35, and acknowledged being warned in his own edit summary of 06:45
Time report made: 07:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:''' User has been continuously edit warring in the battlebox of the article, repeatedly changing casualty numbers and removing well sourced numbers that differ from his own.
:The user filing this report, Isarig, has provided misleading diffs to cover his own violation of 3RR. He has filed this report as a result of being challenged when attempting to provide only one Israeli minister's estimate of Hezbollah militant deaths in the ], of which there are at least ''three''. Please note ] for further discussion, and note the diffs Isarig has provided here with scrutiny. Thanks, ] 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
*Given the situation, I have carefully scrutinized the report. Now, if an edit is a revert to a previous version, the diff between the two versions will show nothing (or almost nothing), at least in the section concerned. Here are the diffs between the "previous version reverted to" and each of the reverts:
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*As in this case there are many differences, I feel that there is insufficient evidence for a 3RR block. ] (]) 10:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h block)===
] violation on {{Article|Chilean coup of 1973}}. {{3RRV|69.223.83.245}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
'''Comment''': These are the only contributions this anon user has made.
Time report made: 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked for 24 hours. -- ''] 13:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)'' <small>]</small>
===] reported by User:] (Result: Stale)===
] violation on {{Article|Vaughan, Ontario}}. {{3RRV|Pm_shef}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
*
Time report made: 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
User was blocked 2 weeks ago with a 3RR violation, now has returned.
*Reverts 1-3 and reverts 4-5 are regarding different parts of the article. ] 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
*Doesn't make it not a 3RR vio, but it's three days ago now and 3RR is for prevention, not punishment, so looks like he gets away with it. ] (]) 10:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h block)===
] violation on {{Article|Sanskrit}}. {{3RRV|Crculver}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:''' One of the parties involved was blocked for the same offence for 24 hours by an administrator. The WP:3RR policy states: In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. . . I found it very unfair that only one of the parties involved got blocked for violating WP:3RR. Comment: The same admin has now also blocked the other party and said he didn't see the other violation first. --] 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
''2006-08-08T16:42:30 Bishonen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Crculver (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Sanskrit)'' ] 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result:24 hours)===
] violation on {{Article|Family_Research_Council}}. {{3RRV|Joe_Carter}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 22:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
* 24 hours, I'm tempt to block indef as an username block as an celeb name, see ]. ] ] 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result:24 hrs)===
] violation on {{Article|2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict}}. {{3RRV|Stephenzhu}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE
INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&oldid=68237717
14:40, 7 August 2006]
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you
provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 01:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
*Blocked 24 hours for 3RR. -- ] 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: No block)===
] violation on {{Article|Adventures in Babysitting}}. {{3RRV|crumbsucker}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
Time report made: 02:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments: I attempted to compromise and take crumbsucker's criticism as constructive. I cited sources when he asked for them, and still he edited the page without even recognizing that I was attempting to meet him halfway. From the look of his talk page, he frequently likes to start Edit Wars and does not want to get along with anyone who disagrees with him.'''{{unsigned|PiousPratt}}
* Both parties have violated 3RR. ] however was introducing some personal and non-notable external links, which I believe were seen as spam by ]. At this time I have not blocked the users, but have warned both users. --] ] 02:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
*Removing your personal spam links isn't 3RR. You've already been warned by an administrator to stop adding them. ] 03:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
* ] does indeed state that spam is vandalism. ] is not in danger of being blocked over this (in fact, ] is more likely to be blocked) but I am trying to settle this in a fashion where nobody needs to be blocked. --] ] 03:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on {{Article|Anarchism}}. {{3RRV|AaronS}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert: Edit summary: "rv boring sock; get some new material, please"
* 2nd revert: Edit summary: "rv: doink"
* 3rd revert: Edit summary: "Revert to revision 68494593 dated 2006-08-08 22:50:06 by VoluntarySlave using popups"
* 4th revert: Edit summary: "Revert to revision 68524012 dated 2006-08-09 02:00:39 by EbonyTotem using popups"
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* He knows about the 3RR. Examples of past warning: And past block: ] 04:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Time report made: 04:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
*Although the previous version reverted to was not completed, AaronS handily admitted to reverting in the edit summary each time, and is blocked for 24 hours. ] (]) 10:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
**Looking at this again after an email request from AaronS, the fourth revert was definitely reverting a banned user (mentioning this in the edit summary may have caused me to look further). The others do not appear to have been, but reverting a banned user is exempt and as such Aaron should not have been blocked. ] (]) 14:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 8h)===
] violation on {{Article|%C4%B0zmir}}. {{3RRV|Adkagansu}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous versions reverted to, if applicable: Prior versions are given individually in the description of each revert.
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* '''1st revert''': (reversion to ): removing the line '''(]: Σμύρνη, ]: Zmyurnia)'''
* '''2nd revert''': (reversion to ): removing the line '''(]: Σμύρνη, ]: Zmyurnia)'''
* '''3rd revert''': (reversion to ): adding the paragraph '''"and from the first day of their landing ..."'''
* '''4th revert''': (reversion to ): removing the Greek-Armenian line, and adding the paragraph '''"and from the first day of their landing ..."'''
Please note that this user is fully aware of the 3RR rule, as evident from his user talk: ]
Time report made: 09:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comment:''' The user basically keeps removing the segment '''(]: Σμύρνη, ]: Zmyurnia)'''. And he keeps adding POV paragraph (starting with '''"and from the first day of their landing ..."''').
--] 09:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
*Blocked for 8 hours by WMC. ] (]) 10:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC). I did. Sorry I forgot to report it here... ] 10:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 8h)===
] violation on {{Article|Battle of Mu'tah
}}. {{3RRV|Tickle me}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
'''Comment:''' this users keep reverting the entire article not even just disputed content, thereby removing even useful changes made in the intervening periods.
:here are two further identical reverts not mentioned above (making the count six):
:*
:*
] 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Time report made: 10:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
*You have provided oldids, not ]. Please provide diffs. ] (]) 10:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
*Oops, a cursory look at the page history shows four clearly-marked reverts, so 8h. ] (]) 10:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on {{Article|Aisha
}}. {{3RRV|Pecher}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
'''Comment:''' this user keeps deleting all formulations of reference to any NPOV formulation of the term Prophet even specifically describing Muhammad as a prophet of Islam. The user has pushed this across various other pages as well and refuses to discuss his problem anywhere.
Time report made: 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what these diffs are supposed to show and where there is a 3RR violation here. I've requested a page protectio, though, given that Tigeroo keeps edit warring and pushing a POV description of Muhammad as a "final prophet". ] <sup>]</sup> 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
My bad if the diffs are the wrong ones, I was just showing how he has consisently returned the page to the same language even after edits have been made in the pages, anway i think they and Pechers arrival here and on requesting page protection elsewhere after left him a message on the Aisha talk page demonstrate a tacit acceptance of a 3RR violation.--] 14:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:A comment on this noticeboard is a rather weird evidence in favor of acceptance of a non-existing violation. In the edit war(s) that you're waging, the most appropriate course of action is to request page protection, as I did, instead of trying to gain advantage by having another user blocked, as you did to Tickle me. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
: I disagree the proper way to do this is to talk, and I have opened this debate on more than one page, you are absent addressing the issue except on RV description lines. There is no advantage in a temporary block, its not a ban, it's call to get people who wont sit down to do so instead of sticking fixedly to a position. This is a collaborative all inclusive effort not a solo exclusivist place, I have addressed your issues but you have ignored all of mine.--] 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like 3RR. Pecher, you would gain some minor credit by marking your reverts as such ] 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:]] (Result: 8h)===
] violation on {{Article|David Cameron}}. {{3RRV|Jamesedwardsmith}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
User warned on his talk page. ]] 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
8h ] 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on {{Article|Hamas}}. {{3RRV|Yas121}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*Yas121 keeps inserting a paragraph about a 2002 rally for Hamas in the lead section. The second revert was of a different section, but was still clearly a revert, and marked as such. This editor has been warned at length about 3RR before: see ] and ]. He still continues to revert . ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
] violation on {{Article|Episodes of Lost (season 3)}}. {{3RRV|SergeantBolt}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:''' I gave this user the 3RR boilerplate on his 4th revert and warned him that i would report him if he was to make annother revert in under 24 hours.
However he did not heed to the warning and just called the changes made vandalism, and reverted again. Thus i am forced to report the users actions. <font face="Tahoma" size="1"><small>] (] | ])</small></font> 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:This is a ridiculous ] invocation of 3RR. As has been pointed out to this user (MatthewFenton), the reverts in question (SergeantBolt's, but also by others, including myself) were to enforce repeated insertion of uncited and unverifiable content by multiple anon editors, over a period of weeks. Note that the page in question has now (thank goodness) been protected by an admin, to prevent the constant reinsertion that SergeantBolt and I were combatting through our reverts. This user's inclination towards slavish adherence to a policy, and failure to recognize what is truly going on in a given situation, has been discussed at length by numerous editors in an RfC (]). This 3RR report by MatthewFenton is but the latest example of this extreme and disruptive behavior. -- ] 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you look at the history you will ntice a user tried to cite the source however was reverted. Also what is wrong about adhearing to policy? Are you telling me i'm not supposed to adhear to policy?
:Also i think you need to stop going on about "wikilawyering" i have not taken any exams to become a solictor or work in law nor am i old enough to enter into such a proffesion in law. <font face="Tahoma" size="1"><small>] (] | ])</small></font> 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, You call these edits vandalism yet the opening paragraphs of ] make it blatently obvious that these edits are in fact not vandalism and the ones causing disruption are your selfs.
:''Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.''
Now if it was classed as simple vandlism then 3RR would not apply, however this is not the case and 3RR does apply, i did warn the user and i did make my intentions pretty clear '''that i did not wish to have to report him'''! (See also: ]) <font face="Tahoma" size="1"><small>] (] | ])</small></font> 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::Once again, you show you have no concept of policy. Wikilawyering states that:
Wikilawyering refers to the frowned upon practices of:
1. Using formal legal terms inappropriately regarding Misplaced Pages policy.
2. Asserting that technical interpretation of Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express.
3. '''Hiding behind misinterpretations of policy to justify inappropriate edits.'''
And according to the ADMINISTRATOR that PROTECTED the article due to VANDALISM, it is 'the case'. ] 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:I think you need to calm down and stop talking in caps, now i am not trying to justify any edits so i dont have a clue what you are talking about, furthermore i do not see a policy/guideline sticker on that page.
:Also.. Please stop refering to me as a lawyer, as i have stated im not a lawyer! <font face="Tahoma" size="1"><small>] (] | ])</small></font> 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::The "source" that was cited is a fan rumor site (spoilerfix.com), and therefore not acceptable by WP standards of ]. This was pointed out to Matthew. Again, please refer to the RfC for multiple editors' voiced concerns about Matthew's disruptive behavior in incidents like this. -- ] 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I think you've made your point.. i have an RfC.. and? <font face="Tahoma" size="1"><small>] (] | ])</small></font> 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::::And therefore, that is proof of your past and similar behaviour like this as well as you being biased in this argument because you made an edit for the opposing side. ] 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: I reverted as it was cited. <font face="Tahoma" size="1"><small>] (] | ])</small></font> 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::But not by acceptable WP standards of verifiability, so it didn't count. ] 20:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' No action as 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Adding unreliable content to Misplaced Pages is vandlaism, and SergeantBolt (along with another user) was reverting that in GF. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:<font face="Tahoma" size="1"><small>] (] | ])</small></font> (Result:1month)===
] violation on {{Article|Episodes of Lost (season 3)}}. {{3RRV|Corn Man}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) : Yes (see user talk)
Time report made: 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:''' Warned for 3RR, i will not revert again as i do not wish to violate 3RR. <font face="Tahoma" size="1"><small>] (] | ])</small></font> 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' User has already been blocked for one month for vandalism. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:''(]])'' (Result: 4h)===
] violation on {{Article|Steve_Jobs}}. {{3RRV|Paul_E_Ester}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:''' I think this individual is acting in good faith relative to citing ] but is a bit confused about the ] of sources like ], ], and ] relative to reports about concerns surrounding the health of ]. Unless both myself and ] are wrong this individual could do for a warning (a block should be the last step imho). ''(]])'' 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
: I agree with Netscott. See ] for a summary of this dispute. (Scroll past Paul's original comment. He hasn't replied since then, so maybe he hasn't seen our replies yet.)
: I think someone, a third party, just needs to step into his talk page and explain why his reversions are misguided, even if made with good intentions. <span style="font-size: small;"> —''Banzai!'' ] @ 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)</span>
::::The Poorly sourced material that Netscott and Banzai would like to introduce into the article comes from an opinion column from a wired columnist, a CNET blog, and ARS article about the wired columnists column, Per ] I have removed these less than high quality sources and the speculation they bring to the bio. I outlined my concerns with the sources ]. One should be able to distingush between news and opinion. The speculation these opinion pieces bring to the article is a clear violation of ] thanks, --] 22:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::If there was ever a problem with this material, the the ] wouldn't be citing ]'s report . ''(]])'' 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Hi Scott your citing here " A daily dose of postings from The Chronicle's technology blog (sfgate.com/blogs/tech)". We need to distinguish between blogs and news articles. Blogs like columnist columns are opinion pieces and as such are not reliable sources. --] 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::] does not permit "personal blogs" but for blogs and opinion pieces from well established and reliable sources (as has been mentioned above) that correspond to the subject matter mentioned in the article there is no problem. ''(]])'' 22:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::: Paul, it was in the print edition of the ''Chronicle'' too. Look on page C1. Regardless, ''opinion'' pieces (in addition to blogs, independent commentary, and the like) are perfectly acceptable to cite as sources for the statement that people are ''speculating'' about Steve Jobs. <span style="font-size: small;"> —''Banzai!'' ] @ 05:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)</span>
*I don't consider the reverts to be exempted, Paul should have taken it to talk earlier and is blocked for 4 hours. ] (]) 22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on {{Article|United_Kingdom}}. {{3RRV|193.1.172.163}}:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
24h ] 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 72h)===
] violation on {{Article|Scholars for 9/11 Truth}}. {{3RRV|Francespeabody}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* User previously blocked for 6-revert 3rr violation.
Time report made: 03:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
:Blocked for 72 hours (repeat offense) + personal attacks. --<font color="#191970">]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">] ]</font>)</small> 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: No violation)===
] violation on {{Article|Ontotheology}}. {{3RRV|Kenosis}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert: (cur) (last) 17:14, 10 August 2006 Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (Back to last intelligible version by KillerChihuahua)
* 3rd revert: (cur) (last) 14:26, 10 August 2006 Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 68802987 dated 2006-08-10 12:10:56 by Kenosis using popups)
* 4th revert: (cur) (last) 02:49, 10 August 2006 Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (→Heidegger - Replace an edit by Tercross in first paragraph of section which simplified terms-of-art somewhat)
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Given notice on userpage and in talk page.
--] 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comment:''' This is bogus retaliation by a tendentious editor (formerly ] who has now switched names to ], and who merely wishes to get his way on bogus ideas in a currently expanding philosophy article. I reluctantly used my righteous three reverts helping to keep this article stable as it develops, while making appropriate points on the talk page. The fourth "instance" shown above is not a reversion but a synthesis of currently developing content implemented last night. Two other editors also have reverted the same material trying to get it back in bounds. (We had a WP:NPOV problem, a WP:OR problem and an unintelligibility problem, along with some personal musings thrown in the article for good measure.) If you note the time of this "report", it was placed after my report of five reverts by User:Lucaas located farther below on this page. Sorry to bother the administrators with this nonsense. ... ] 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, the only "notice" involved was either ex-post-facto or a simple reproduction of my notice to Lucaas displaying his own reverts as of that time (). ... ] 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
*Apart from the report being malformed (look at all the others for what it should look like), #4 is clearly not a revert, no block. ] (]) 22:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on {{Article|Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia}}. {{3RRV|Kertenkelebek}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous versions reverted to, if applicable: Prior versions are given individually in the description of each revert.
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* '''1st revert''': (reversion to )
* '''2nd revert''': (reversion to )
* '''3rd revert''': (reversion to )
* '''4th revert''': (reversion to )
Please note that this user is fully aware of the 3RR rule, as he has been blocked before for 24 hours.
Time report made: 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comment:''' The user reverts other editors, removing a consensus version and introducing POV edits.
--] 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This user has now made a total of 7, that's right 7 reverts today on that page!--] 17:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24h. -- ]<font color="green">]</font> 22:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: No apparent violation)===
] violation on {{Article|Ukraine_national_football_team}}. {{3RRV|Kwame_Nkrumah}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to: ?
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The user has made 7 reverts in the past 3 days on the article. He was warned prior to making his 4th revert today, but he simply decided to use another screenname to make his 4th revert and left the following for me .
--] 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:The fourth edit was not mine. Thanks.--] 16:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::You are the only person on Misplaced Pages soccer pages arguing for uniforms to not show their exact designs. Your edits have been reverted countless times on other pages and you have gotten into very harsh uncompromising discussions such as , while posting retribution such as your post on my Talk page. Additionally, it is not a coincidence that you would stop posting from 12:09 till 12:42 under Kwame Nkrumah , while your second pseudonym posts from 12:14 to 12:38 while you're under watch, . --] 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:::This is an acuse of sockpuppetry. I hope you have more solid proofs for such an act.--] 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes, it's 2 things--posting as a sock puppet and breaking the 3RR. Hopefully the admins have more advanced tools to confirm that this is indeed the case. --] 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
*Missing two things here, firstly the previous version reverted to (which would prove that the first listed item is indeed a revert and not just a regular edit) and second, four reverts by the same person. The fourth was by a different account. ] (]) 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: 2 weeks)===
] violation on {{Article|Ferrari}}. {{3RRV|70.249.197.46}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
As seen on ], repeatedly warned for spamming several article pages. Can be seen as only contributing "external links" on . Deserves a permanent block, but a 3RR block will suit me fine just now. '']''
*We don't indef block IPs unless they are open proxies. Given this guy's contribution history, however, I think 2 weeks would be justified. ] (]) 22:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result:48h)===
] violation on {{Article|Ontotheology}}. {{3RRV|Lucaas}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Notice given after four reverts, then
* 5th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Notice given twice:
*
*
Time report made: 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''Note also the fabricated retaliatory report filed by ] (formerly ]) ... ] 20:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
*Sigh, blocking 24h for 3RR and another 24h for incivility by filing a retaliatory report, removing warnings, etc. ] (]) 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result: No violation)===
] violation on {{Blue-water navy|blue water navies}}. {{3RRV|User:UberCryxic}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
He continues to impose his beliefs instead of citing sources and ignoring the previous consensus and not resorting to the talk page.
--] 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
User Marneus is being extremely deceptive here. I actually reverted the specific point we are haggling over only twice. You can see that my other changes to the article were either additions or deletions of other material that the user was not contesting. Only my first and third edits in the article were reverts. If you look at the article, you will find I edited it a total of five times, three of them not being reverts of anything. Thank you.] 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you actually look at the history of the ], you will find that Marneus HAS violated 3RR, but I did not report him/her because I do not like this rule/system.] 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
:There has been no violation of ]. However, it is advisable that you both settle the argument completely on the talk page. -- ] ] ] ] ] 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
=== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h)===
{{article|St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine}}
* Revert 1:
* Revert 2:
* Revert 3:
* Revert 4:
* Revert 5:
Classic ]. Article now sprotected. Warned by uninvolved BucketsofG Please wield cluebat as I am now involved. ] 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
: Blocked for 24 hours. ] 22:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
===] and sock-puppet ] reported by User:<font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> (Result: ] blocked for 24hrs) ===
] violation on {{Article|Michel Foucault}}. {{3RRV|Kmaguir1}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 05:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:''' User repeatedly inserts homophobic ] material in bio. Latest edits are by brand-new sock-puppet that was created entirely to hide 3RR violation. "Truthseekers", FWIW, is a phrase repeatedly used by Kmaguir1 on my talk page and several article talk pages in the last few hours (hence making the sock-puppetry obvious). Similar recent 3RR block on ] (also homophobic rants). Sock-puppetry is also reported at: ]
''Clarification'': There are actually two (related) changes going on above. One inserts a claim about Foucault "spreading AIDS"; the other inserts a claim about Foucault being subject to a "faculty investigation" (both are false and/or unverifiable, FWIW). Some of the above edits reinsert both parts, some just one of the two; but however you count it, four or more reversions have been made to either claim (both were first introduced to the article by Kmaguir1 a few days earlier).
:I'm sorry--this is not Kmaguir1. Check the IP address. I am just a loyal supporter of the truth, and his attempt to get it out, and this is not sock-puppetry. Any block is invalid. I just recently created this account. -] 05:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::This is all fabricated. He's a friend, he made these edits of his own volition. Lulu's allegations are false. The material is not homophobic--it states claims cited from a published article. -] 08:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::The first two she claims are reverts are not that. They add citations only, which is what was requested by another user. I know the 3RR rule well, and did not break it. -] 09:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::And the fifth revert she puts on there was not done by me. -] 09:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:Comment: ] and ] dispute being in a sockpuppeteer/] relationship, but by their own admission are in a meatpuppeteer/] relationship, at least for the time being. This may stem from being new to wikipedia (we all were new once), but hte current effect of these two accounts is to be acting as one, and thus disrupting wikipedia.--] 15:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
] blocked for 24 hours, 2nd violation. If the suspected meatpuppet reverts again he will be violating 3rr as well. -- ''']]]''' 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:Gregory9 (Result: 48hrs)===
] violation on {{Article|Mass in special relativity}}. {{3RRV|Ati3414}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
'''Comments:'''
The user keeps removing the phrase "The relativistic mass of such a particle may be taken to be its energy divided by ''c''<sup>2</sup>." Despite many requests to stop by ], ], ], and others, ] continues to incite an editting war.
Note (sockpuppets): sometimes ] forgets to sign in and shows up as ]. It is apparrent in the editting, but if you have any doubt this edit proves it:
. Also, edit logs show he is probably ] and again here is .
Also, note that ] has been involved in multiple editting wars, and has already been banned twice (up to 1 month) for behavior relating to such disputes (including a 3RR violation). Heck, here's documentation of another reverting war within the last week even: that people decided to not report. ] knows the rules and continues to flagrantly violate them while showing absolutely no evidence that he can be "rehabilitated".
Time report made: 07:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours. -- ''']]]''' 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:Propol===
] has violated the 3RR on mutliple occaisons. See the ] article for an example. The user has been warned multiple times, see ], and has even been blocked before. Unfortunately, the behavior has continued. Would an administrator please block this user. I greatly appreciate your help. ] 17:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result:)===
] violation on {{Article|Ukraine national football team}}. {{3RRV|Palffy}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:''
* Maybe he made only 3 reverts in 24h, but made 4 in 25.5h, and did thid just to force his POV ''before'' the page protection ''he'' asked for an edit war ''he'' was making.--] 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
==Report Example== <!--Post reports just above this line-->
'''BEFORE REPORTING, PLEASE MAKE SURE THE USER IS FAMILIAR WITH THE 3RR RULE. IF IT IS A NEW USER OR ANON IP, PLACE A WARNING (ie: {{]}} ) ON HIS/HER TALK PAGE AND REPORT THEM ONLY IF THEY CONTINUE TO REVERT.'''
Here's an example of what a listing should look like:
<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here! Copy this example and formulate your report with it by filling in diffs and areas SPECIFIED IN CAPS and then post it just above this "Report Example" section! -->
<pre><nowiki>
===] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===
] violation on {{Article|PROBLEM ARTICLE/PAGE NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If you cannot fill this in, do not make a report. It absolutely must be included, either here or separately for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*
Time report made: ~~~~~
'''Comments:'''
===] reported by User:] (Result:)===
] violation on {{Article|Blue-water navy}}. {{3RRV|UberCryxic}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
He does not cites sources and uses just his beliefs instead of consensus or sources.
# (cur) (last) 14:05, 10 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m (added crucial corollary in definition that i'm a little dismayed has been left out up to this point)
# (cur) (last) 04:32, 10 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m (removed unnecessary source for france having a blue-water navy)
# (cur) (last) 03:59, 10 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m (see talk page; i did discuss it)
# (cur) (last) 18:50, 9 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m
# (cur) (last) 18:50, 9 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m (removed spanish navy; the only true blue-water navies in the world are the american, british, and the french)
When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (7 January 2025)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments: The user was warned multiple times to not insert poorly sourcedcontentious material in a page which is a living person's biography. Despite this, the user has continued to insert original research, while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.
I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--BubbleBabis (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267996553 by Hipal (talk) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: he removed my warning for whatever reason
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
Comment: This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Declined Garudam, who is aware of CTOPS as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has said he is "considering taking a break" and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
I edited Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#How to avoid an edit war. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
WP:AVOIDEDITWAR This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. NotQualified (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They have been warned before about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_September_2024 (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of Reform UK abuse scandal, amongst other things. James McMurdock#Assault conviction
Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE."
Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with NotQualified (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment NotQualified (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@NotQualified: Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. NotQualified (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
I add templates to an article with faults
The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
I notify the user
I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis NotQualified (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."
It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. MrOllie (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. MrOllie (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article 'heritability of IQ' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user CNMall41 has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. Shecose (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
That is because CNMall41's only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this is block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I realize the policy states, An editor must not perform more than three reverts, right? This is three, not more than three. It shows the desperation. Shecose (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Shecose, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
04:26 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
04:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
04:43 9 January 2025 (UTC): "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
Comments:
Taken from the ANI report i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
Ger2024 has been Misplaced Pages:Edit warring and violated WP:3RR (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly WP:NPOV despite my direct requests asking them to not engage in an edit war and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think WP:SPA might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within 38 minutes after being inactive since May 18th, 2024 based off their user contributions history.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? PhilipPirrip (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "←Created page with '== January 2025 == Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You didn't read the MOS:TVCAST carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user was not following the MOS:TVCAST correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Update this page
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Blocked – for a period of 3 years The range 5.187.0.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) by Ahect Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Declined Garudam, who is aware of CTOPS as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has said he is "considering taking a break" and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at Huddersfield sex abuse ring, you may be blocked from editing. FoxtAl (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely Jauerback/dude. 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
