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

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

Revision as of 03:51, 3 January 2007 editCSTAR (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users8,870 edits →[] reported by User:[] (Result:24h): Stray text deleted← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:26, 9 January 2025 edit undoBbb23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,846 edits →User:Ger2024 reported by User:Sunnyediting99 (Result: ): sock indeffed
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<center>'''Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.'''</center>
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive31--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 250K
			\|counter = 491
			\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
			\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	==Violations==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}} <br />
	Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Chance997}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	] violation on
			#
	{{Article\|Misplaced Pages:Discuss, don't vote}}. {{3RRV\|Radiant!}}:
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* Previous version reverted to: complex partial reversions

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* 1st revert: removes disputed tag with red question mark previously
	* 2nd revert: removes "There has been no consensus" language added in
	* 3rd revert: restores "This page is a clear and accurate description of how Misplaced Pages works.", which was removed in the
	* 4th revert: removes "essay", and replaces it with "page", undoing the

	''' ~~Comments~~:''' ~~The~~ ~~by ] is not a reversion. ] 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)~~		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	:John, there has been a technical violation here, but I'm not keen on blocking an established editor with no prior blocks over a tag dispute on a project page. Also, the first revert is arguably an edit. I'd prefer just to leave a note for him asking him to watch the reverting in future. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 11:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	::He's an administrator and should know better. If he's keen on reversing things under discussion (I have seen him do this before) that is inappropriate. If he is in violation, he should be treated as any other editor would be and get a block. He should not be given special treatment and held to lesser standards of behavior because he's an administrator. -] 12:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "<code><nowiki>a ] containing an ] alien ]</nowiki></code>" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the ]). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, ] and ], citing ] as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. ] '''''<small style="font-size:70%;">(])</small>''''' 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::It's for a number of reasons, THB. First, the report is ambiguous, because it's not clear that the first revert is a revert, and anyway if you look at the edits, you'll see they're inching toward a resolution; it's not just a pointless back and forth. Secondly, this is an established editor (admin has nothing to do with it) with no blocks to his name, despite being here since Feb 2005. Third, it was a dispute over a tag on a project page. For those three reasons jointly, I believe a note on his page is appropriate here. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 13:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I totally agree. -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 13:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Good call by ]. I agree that technically it was a vio... but SlimVirgin's reasoning is essentially sound with the slight caveat that ]'s page/activity sat rather for months. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 15:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at ] to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	===] reported by User:<tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> (Result: 24 hours)===
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Han_Chinese}}. {{3RRV\|Mamin27}}:

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ToadGuy101}}
	''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
	Please check his block log. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 05:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
	:1ne blocked him for 24 hours. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 11:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	===] reported by User:] (Result: Page protected)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	] violation on
			# {{diff2\|1267771905\|16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	{{Article\|Chuck Munson}}. {{3RRV\|Chuck0}}:
			# {{diff2\|1267757010\|14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])Stop whining about him"
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
			# {{diff2\|1267751151\|14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267747621\|13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1267751597\|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
	3RR warning just a short while ago previously by an administrator on his talk page:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!--
			# {{diff2\|1267301347\|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	-->

	''' Comments:''' <~~!-- Optional --~~>		<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	:This doesn't appear to be a 3RR violation, as the first revert above appears to have been the first edit. It's a moot point anyway because Will Beback has protected the page. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 11:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
			*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==
	] violation on
	{{Article\|History of the Jews in Ukraine}}. {{3RRV\|Hillock65}}:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1000mods}} <br />
	* Previous version reverted to:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mindxeraser}}
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:

	~~Warning~~:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:He's also been blocked before for 3RR, so 24 hours. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result: 3h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Anton Balasingham
	}}. {{3RRV\|Rajsingam}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* ~~Previous~~ ~~version~~ ~~reverted~~ to:		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:
	* 8th revert:
	* 9th revert:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			{{AN3\|b\|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==
	<!--
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	-->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fernanda Torres}}
	''' Comments:''' He is three month older wikipedian who holds 589 total edit count and can be seen on some ] related controversial topics. So I don't think that he does need any 3RR warning prior to the report. --] ]</sup> 15:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}
	:'''Note''' - He was reverting unreliably sourced info in the correct manner. I dont see why he couldnt use rediff though.<b>]]</b> 16:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:'''comment''' the user Rajsingam is actually running a mock at the Anton Balasigham article..He had reverted other peoples edits, '''without making any comments in the talk page'''.Making comments at the talk page,before reverting is a general rule in wikipedia and I don't think we should allow this user to break this fundamental principal.Further,he reverted my edits 3 times,within last hour, thus making the total number of violations over 7.
	--] 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:'''comment''' I strongly urge the admins to take action against this individual to prevent needless revert wars. He has been persistently removing cited commentrary from a reliable source critical of the famous terrorist advisor Anton Balasingham. He has been warned several time to desist, but he has not.] 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267808569\|20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
			# {{diff2\|1267807858\|20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267807213\|20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806982\|20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806103\|20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Seems to have gone quiet now. 3h block as a token ] 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267807698\|20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267808131\|20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing (])"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result: no block)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?}}. {{3RRV\|61.68.119.205}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* Previous version reverted to:
			{{AN3\|b\|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==
	''' Comments:''' This user has multiple IPs, at the least ] ] and ]. Was warned at . Doesn't wait for consensus, insists that because a message has been left on the talk page (which was disputed by other editors), this is license to add anything at whim. Was asked to slow down and wait for consensus, but won't. The four reverts occur over 25 hours and 19 minutes, but ] says "Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day" and in light of the warning and disputatious nature of talk page edits (user also had to be warned twice for NPA), I think this is a special case. — ] ] — 15:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}
	:User has moved on to new IP at ]. — ] ] — 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Csknp}}
	Given that this was not within 24h, and is now fairly stale, and its multiple IPs, I can't see any point in a block. Bring it back if it recurrs ] 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result: no block)===

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*rv1
			# {{diff2\|1267452946\|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*rv2
			# {{diff2\|1267525585\|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*rv3
	*rv4

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Time reported: 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267644988\|01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267646582\|01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Comments:''' The first three are just straight reverts across three separate editors (the third is where I tried to restore a previously stable version of the page) but the last shows that this user undid '''most''' of my last edit. According to my understanding of ] this is a revert as well. I brought this ] of this editor and he disagreed that it was a revert. ] is a user in good standing and if I am correct about these reverts then I would not want him to be blocked (just warned much like ] ]) but I would appreciate if those with a bit more authority could clarify this. Thanks. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267699885\|diff=1267736737\|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	: My fourth edit, fixing your horribly broken english, is not remotely a revert. ] - ] 17:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
			This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Additionly, my second edit is not a direct revert, as it adds the word "Many users," which seems to have satisfied you, at the very least. ] - ] 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
			: I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::You might like to abide by CIV as well there Hipocrite... if I'm right I don't expect that your lack of civility is going to help you any. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 17:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}} (by {{u\|BusterD}}) ] (]) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: I am sorry that I called your edit "horribly broken english." I should have written instead that it was "obviously improper grammar." For this I apologize. Now, could you stop wasting everyones time trying to get useless warnings and cautions placed on users pages and refer to the talk page in question? Thanks. ] - ] 17:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
	3R; I can't see why the 4th is a rv ] 20:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	===] reported by User:TKD (Result:24 hour block)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Star_Wars_Episode_II:_Attack_of_the_Clones}}. {{3RRV\|Venom-smasher}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!--
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
			# {{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:'''
	''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->This user and {{user\|The Filmaker}} have been going back and forth on a few of the ''Star Wars'' movie pages for a couple of days. I tried article protection on the ''Episode I'' page to calm things down, and warned that resumption of edit warring would result in blocks. However, I think that, having since joined relevant discussion, I should defer to someone else to block for the continuing revert war. Times are UTC -5. — ]::] 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

	:Both users blocked for 24 hours. If they continue, I'll protect the page. --] 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	===] reported by User:TKD (Result:24 hours)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Star_Wars_Episode_II:_Attack_of_the_Clones}}. {{3RRV\|The_Filmaker}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	* Previous version reverted to:
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* New base version:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	<!--
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	-->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->Times are UTC -5. See above for the other half of this revert war ({{user\|Venom-smasher}}). I when I unprotected the Episode I article, but have since entered discussion myself, so I don't feel comfortable applying blocks in this dispute. I was hoping that there would be a better solution to this, but, as the diffs show, it's gotten pretty ugly. — ]::] 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:As above. --] 22:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	===] reported by User:] 21:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (Result: 12 hours)===
			# (31 December 2024)
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Baklava}}. {{3RRV\|12.170.101.194}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

			<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 />
	3RR warning on a different article was made this morning .

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	''' Comments:''' This is an IP that has been edit warring in a number of hot ethnic disputes. Even though he is an anon, he seems to know Wiki policies well. I had warned him of the 3RR before in another disputed article . User targets mainly articles concerning one ethnicity and has been making numerous extremely POV edits like the one here ] 21:00, 26 December 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)
			::{{AN3\|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	*I have blocked the user for 12 hours per ]. ] 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	===] reported by User:] (Result:<s>No Block</s> 24h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	] violation on
	{{Article\|foie gras}}. {{3RRV\|ramdrake}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!--
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
			# {{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"
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
			# {{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:'''
	''' Comments:''' The user ramdrake reverted my contribution to a scientifical description of foie gras (as an effect of steatosis pathology) pretending that it "imparts a strong negative bias". But my contribution was a description of a fact, which he recognizes, and there were not any subjective valuations. Telling facts does not impart negative bias, just like telling that Saddam Hussein killed people is not a negative bias but just "letting the facts speak for themselves", as recommanded in ].
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"

	*These are different reverts in different areas of the article. If Benio76 wants to call these a 3RR on Ramdrake, he himself has got 6RR on everybody else. Multiple users are reverting Benio76 on multiple sections of this article. Benio76 is a ] to push an agenda at that article ] 22:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	**The ] says "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Misplaced Pages page within a 24 hour period." Ramdrake did four reversions in less than two hours. ] 23:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	:These strictly speaking aren't reverts. The diffs between versions are sufficiently different that I don't consider them reverts. If another admin has a different opinion, by all means, issue a block.--] 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''These four edits by Ramdrake clearly ''are'' reverts.''' They are the plainest reverts you can get!

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Edit 1, : Ramdrake deleted the phrase "''and a number of countries and local jurisdictions''" from the intro paragraph. I had just put that phrase in. To see that just go back to the .
			#
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*Edit 2, : Same thing again, concerning the same phrase, except that Ramdrake also botched up the sentence by removing an additional piece. To see that it is a revert just go back to the two preceeding edits and .

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*Edit 3, : Ramdrake deleted the sentence "''Its name refers to the pathology called ] or ], which induces an abnormal growth of the liver.''" and an additional two words that had just been put in by user benio76. To see that it is a revert just go back to the two preceeding edits and .

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*Edit 4, : Same revert again. To see that just go back to the .
			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)
	If these are not reverts, both in the strict sense of the term and in the spirit of the 3RR guidelines, I really do not know what might qualify as a revert!

			: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)
	Ramdrake, along with other users, is counting on the strict enforcement of the 3RR rule against those who disagree with them, while being able to do exactly what they want to the foie gras page. Do the rules not apply to them? Is it NPOV for one party to be able to do what it wants, while the other sits paralyzed?

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	] 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	: The revised report specifies that this is a complex revert (reversion to previous, but not identical states.) 24h.--] 01:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	===] reported by User:] ] (Result: No Block)===

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Historical_Persecution_by_Jews}}. {{3RRV\|Aminz}}:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* 1st revert: removal of NPOV tag, added by another user at
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268186285\|diff=1268208200\|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	* 2nd revert: restoration of the passage "Jews were involved in a war during 66-70 AD against Rome under the lead of ], whom they had accepted as ]. This war caused a cleavage among Christians and Jews. Christians, opposing militarism, didn't help Jews in the war. They found zealot militarism contradictory with the teachings of Jesus. The murderous slaughters by Jews in Cyprus and Cyrenaica only increased the cleavage. ] and his followers regarded the war as a national war and heavily penalized Christians for not helping their Jewish brethens. Christians's rejection of the militarism was also due to the fact that acceptance of ] as Messiah, left no place for ] to be the Messiah." removed by another user at
			## {{diff2\|1268186883\|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
	* 3rd revert: restoration of the sentence "In addition, according to the book of Esther (8:14), a large number of Persians converted to Judaism out of fear of Jews during the events of ]." removed by another user at
			## {{diff2\|1268202556\|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
	* 4th revert: restoration of the words "tend to regard toleration as a sign of weakness or even wickedness towards whatever diety they worship. Among the religous, toleration is demanded by the persecuted who need it if they are ever to become triumphant, when, all too often, they start to persecute in their turn." removed by another user at
			## {{diff2\|1268202677\|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268203165\|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204621\|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204745\|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204943\|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268205104\|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268208200\|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	''' Comments:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268160425\|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
	*This does not appear to be a 3RR violation at all. Just additions of content.—] (]) 10:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268160707\|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."
	**Actually, reverts 2, 3, and 4 were ''re''-additions of content previously removed by other users. Waiting for an admin to deal with this report. ] ] 10:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: '''Comment'''. This doesn't qualify as a 3RR vio, then. There have to be more than 3 reverts.--] 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::What about the first revert, then? ] ] 20:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::: That doesn't look like a revert to me. Consider the diffs between the versions of the first two: : These versions substantially different--] 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Reverts need not be to the same version. The second revert that you've linked above seems clear: edit summary ''restore the war issue...'' restoring the passage beginning with the words "Jews were involved in a war." Chabuk removed this passage, then Aminz restored it. It's clearly a revert. ] ] 20:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: I don't think so. According to the definition ]
	:::::::''However in the context of the English Misplaced Pages three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article.''
	::::::The action taken on the second edit by Arminz does not take it back to the same version as the first edit. Please note also, that in filing a 3RR report, it is desirable that a "reverted to version" also be provided. In any case I don't see these as being reversions, but if you disagree, ask another admin to review my interpretation.--] 20:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:::::: One further comment: I tried looking at the diffs suggested by your comparisons of additions and removals. The diffs of these versions don't appear to me to be the same. But again as I said, please feel free to ask someone else.--] 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268160586\|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	My only purpose was to add content to the article. The first edit for example is not a revert. As one can see from the talk page User: Charlie added the tag because he thought the title of the article is inherently POV. However I argued that we have articles on ] and ] and removed the tag. Later he added the tag again commenting that: "''I overreacted, perhaps.'' But I still think that much of the content is very POV..." As soon as he pointed out the content dispute, I didn't remove the tag. I didn't mean the removal of the tag to be a ''revert''. There is a story behind each other edits. I was about to add more content to the new section I've created which specifically ties the section to Judaism but couldn't do that because I was afraid it would be considered a revert. My feeling of the situation is that Beit Or is only removing whatever I add. --] 11:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	: ''''Warning'''. Whether or not there is a story behind a revert is irrelevant. The point of the 3RR linit is to avoid edit warring; in this instance I didn't see a 3RR vio, it is pretty clear that you have engaged in edit warring. Next time, if there is evidence of edit warring, I will block you regardless of whether it's technically a 3RR vio or not.--] 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] ~~reported~~ by ~~User:~~ ] 13:~~07,~~ 27 ~~December 2006 (UTC~~) ~~(Result:24h)=~~==		== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	] violation on
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}
	{{Article\|Krashovani}}. {{3RRV\|89.172.195.192}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

	*Evidence of warning: , .
	*Blocked 24h. --] 20:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	===] reported by User:] (Result: '''rejected''')===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II}}. {{3RRV\|Beit Or}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 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.
	* Evidence of warning:

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	*'''Rejected'''. Two of those reverts are to ]. ] 22:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			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)
	<!--
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	-->

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->

			:]
	===] reported by User:] (Result:No Block)===
			:"""
			:] 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)
	] violation on
			::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
	{{Article\|Allegations_of_Israeli_Apartheid}}. {{3RRV\|jd2718}}:
			::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) ==
	* Previous version reverted to: different versions, but 3 of the 4 were removal of the same paragraph

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	No evidence of warning, but ] has been a wikipedian for over half a year and has nearly 1000 edits.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	''' Comments: There were no other edits between the 1st and 2nd revert, so perhaps they make up a single revert, in two pieces. But insofar as ] I thought I should bring this here to be enforced or dropped.'''
	* No block. --] 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	===] reported by User:] 06:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC) (Result: No violation)===
			# {{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:'''
	] violation on
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
	{{Article\|List_of_anime_conventions}}. {{3RRV\|TheFarix}}:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* Previous version reverted to: removal of listed convention
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:

			:'''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)
	;Comments
	*There's an ongoing discussion of this on the talk page, and there has to be four reverts for one to be blocked for this. I only see three.--] 07:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	**Not to mention the second edit was a reversion to the correct link for that particular convention.--] 07:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::*This doesn't look like a violation. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Attempts have been made to reason with the anon editor regarding the listing criteria, however s/he still insists that his/her convention should be included regardless of the criteria (using logic such as western Florida is not part of the same state as the rest of Florida because it is in different time zones). A localized RfC with ] has been called to help settle the matter. --''']''' (]) 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	===] reported by User:] (Result: Page protected)===
			: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\|David_Westerfield}}. {{3RRV\|Fighting_for_Justice}}:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	* Previous version reverted to: Starting point , “Fighting for Justice” first deleted the last two links in the article, then reverted not only all attempts to reinstate them, but also all other additions to the article, while making just one small addition himself.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* “Fighting for Justice” is very familiar with the 3RR, having both warned and been warned (and recently, too).

	''' ~~Comments~~:'''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{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:'''
	This is part of a long-standing dispute. For simplicity, I have given only his last four reverts.


	::This is a frivolous addition. ] is doing this as revenge because I got an administrator to protect a page in which, we've had an edit war going on. In addition one of the above links isn't a revert. I removed useless links. Before you consider banning me for 24 hours, look into the history of the ] article. ] 08:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	::::So you admit you DID violate the 3RR. The INITIAL removal of the links is NOT included in the above four reverts.] 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Must you vandalize every board you come across to? Do you not see that an administrator closed the matter? But, no, you gotta throw in your two-cents as usual. ] 04:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::] it doesn't matter if he violated 3RR, since the page is now protected. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. --]] 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::196, you need to provide diffs showing four reverts, not links to the entire article. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::It's protected anyway. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

	It's not protected any more. Here are the 4 diffs:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* 1st revert:

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 2nd revert:
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	* 3rd revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	* 4th revert: ] 08:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	'''Further Comments'''
	I'd suggest dropping the issue. Your edits were badly done(Making a line break in the middle of a sentence, removing key information from the article) etc. You keep re-instating a bad edit, and I'm not sure if that's protected under the 3RR rule. And you're at least as guilty as he is, it seems.--] 09:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	===] reported by User:// ] (Result: 24h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	] violation on
			# {{diff2\|1268346980\|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
	{{Article\|Kosovo Protection Corps}}. {{3RRV\|Noah30}}:
			# {{diff2\|1268346280\|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
			# {{diff2\|1268345229\|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:

	3RR warning (since removed from users talk page)


			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	''' Comments:'''
	lots of warring on this article, all parties should be blocked for 3RR.

	''2006-12-28T20:47:05 Robdurbar (Talk \| contribs \| block) blocked "Noah30 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation)'' and ''2006-12-28T20:47:10 Robdurbar (Talk \| contribs \| block) blocked "KosMetfan (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation)'' ] 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	:Ah, you move too quickly for me Will. Edit conflicted with - :Both ] and ] blocked for 24 hours. I've protected the pag too as one or two other users have been invovled. --] 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::By the way, there is an arbitration ruling applicable to any Kosovo related articles (on probation): ]. Please log any blocks at ]. Regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

			This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	===] reported by User:] (Result:No violation)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Creationism}}. {{3RRV\|Ymous}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	* Previous version reverted to:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!--
			# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
			# "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."
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
			# "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
	-->
			# "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
			# "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"

	''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
	*There must be four reverts to create a violation. ] (]) 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Also, no warning was given. I've given him one myself though.--]] 22:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Thanks, I didn't know either point, but when I reread the "rules" I understood more clearly. I'm afraid that this user would have accused me of being a demon if I made the warning, so I'm glad someone else did. Thanks for your help. ] 03:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	] violation on
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
	{{Article\|Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II}}. {{3RRV\|Oleh Petriv‎}}:
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	* Previous version reverted to:
			Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			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.
	''' Comments:''' Second revert is by an IP 65.94.19.47, which is "likely" him: ]. He has subsequently admitted the edit is his () ] 22:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	''' Follow up:'''
	::The last revert is reverting recently banned open proxy vandal ]. Citing ] on this matter:
	*'''Reverting edits from banned or blocked users'''
	''Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Misplaced Pages in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy.''
	::Therefore this revert does not conform 3RR requirement. Plus it was provoked by the admin Bucketsofg himself as I applied his justification to the revert. Please see (1) in .
	::Also I would like to cite another paragraph from ] policy:
	*'''Intent of the policy'''
	''The three-revert rule is intended to stop edit wars.'' For your information, article ] have been blocked from editing and revert war stopped. Please also consider that in my 1+ year of editing experience at WP I was never involved in editing wars and have no intent to be drawn into them anymore. --] 05:20, 29 December 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).
	'' 2006-12-28T15:14:00 Bucketsofg (Talk \| contribs \| block) m (Protected Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II: protect to end edit warring )'' ] 11:27, 29 December 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.
	===] reported by User:] (Result: warning)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

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

	* ~~Previous~~ ~~version~~ ~~reverted~~ to:		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 5th revert:
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 6th revert:

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

	The first four reverts were done by SchmuckyTheCat in less than 24 hours, on the same item: he repeatedly put back the "good article" template on the talk page of the foie gras article. Each time, he also relisted the article on the GA page. He also at least once (such as in ) deleted the TotallyDisputed template from the main foie gras page. Strictly speaking, he has thus done a lot more than 4 reverts in those 24 hours.

	Those reverts are on an issue that in itself shouldn't be disputed, which is the fact that the foie gras page ''is'' disputed. SchmuckyTheCat appears unable to recognize even the ''existence'' of disagreeing voices.

	SchmuckyTheCat was warned by me after the fourth revert (see ] on the talk page) but he only sneered, and went on to perform two other reverts that same evening, on other issues.

	I do not think the controversy on the foie gras page is to be resolved by revert counting; however, there are rules, and the liberties that SchmuckyTheCat and others repeatedly take with those rules gives them an unfair advantage, allowing them to go on editing the page in a totally POV manner while remaining completely oblivious of all attempts to discussion. This is why I now ask measures to be taken against SchmuckyTheCat.

	] 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	:I encouraged David Olivier to file this complaint . David is on the losing side of a POV war on ]. David attempted to use the Good Article status of the article as a battle. The GA process has a review process to remove articles. When David didn't follow the process, I restored the GA template to the talk page. I then followed what David should have done and filed the GA review for him ]. Removing the tag in a POV war is underhanded vandalism. Restoring the tag, and listing the article for review when you don't think it should be reviewed, is good faith editing.
	:Note on the article itself I'm not being strict about counting, but I'm trying generally to follow 1RR per issue. David's 5th and 6th revert have nothing to do with each other. ] 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	:To whoever is reviewing this report - please be advised that there is an ongoing edit war revolving around two users (Oliverd, Benio76) engaged in a '''radical''' POV pushing (] activism). The issue has been discussed in length on article's Talk page and the user who's changes were reverted repeatedly ignored other editor's arguments. ] 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	As per ], the GA tag is to be removed when a user sees that the article does not satisfy the criteria. The review process is for ''relisting'' the article. That there is an ongoing edit war is uncontroversial, and it is particularly absurd to try to dispute the fact that the article is disputed. To call vandalism an edit by someone who disagrees with you is just rhetoric. ] 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	::There is a huge conflict about the neutrality of ]. A small group of editors are regularly boycotting other editors' improvements, in order to preserve a positive bias pushing commercialization of foie gras. These people ignore arguments, sources and quotation of WP guidelines furnished by other editors, and they have gone as far as accusing me of having created a sock puppet, which is false. Since the article does not satisfy the GA criteria, the reverts made by SchmuckyTheCat are unjustified, ] 01:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	I'm not very happy with all this, but... firstly, reverts to article and talk pages are (AFAIK) counted separately (this could be a Good Question). Secondly STC should not have rv'd 4 times to restore the GA tag, but its semi-stale now; and I don't think the GA tag should simply be removed. So STC gets a warning ] 11:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	: Reverting a talk page seems like disruptive behavior and should be handled separately. Though in some cases reversion in a talk page is justified (to remove obscenities, defamation, vile personal attacks etc) why should it be tolerated there in other cases at all? --] 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	:: Certainly. But what I meant was, the talk and article pages count separately towards the count of 4... at least I think they do. I'll put it onto talk ] 18:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result: 72h)===

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Brett_Favre}}. {{3RRV\|Starwars1955}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:

	''' Comments:''' User has been two or three times before, at least once for violating 3RR. He's reverting to a version with no citations, which violates ] and then says that listing citations twice is against the rules. See and our discussion on the which he seems to ignore.++]++ 00:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	*Also, note that that this editor has been brought up at ]. ] 02:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	72h given previous record ] 11:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Metropolis}}. {{3RRV\|R9tgokunks}}

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

	''' Comments:'''
	] (Hrödberäht) vandalise (edit war, 3RR) arcicles: ], ], ], ], ] etc, etc. He's always revert. See history in arcicles (all edit war R9tgokunks vs all users in all arcicles): , , , , etc. Please help. Please blocked this user on month (or more). ] 00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	PS: He manipulates, it lets old links (see highly - links discussion from... september etc). ] 00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	:First, please use the template provided. Second, you also violated 3RR in at least one of the articles. You're both violating 3RR, and if either of you get blocked, you both get blocked. --]] 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	I will repeat. He leads many edit wars and 3RR! Not one or two - many. Please help (except Wildnox). ] 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	:PS. This is data (links) with end of December 2006 (actually), I did not look for older. ] 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	How can the vandal get blocked, ''and'' the contributor who reverted the vandalism also get blocked? Surely this doesn't happen elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, does it?] 02:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	24h ] 11:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Metropolis}}. {{3RRV\|LUCPOL}}

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

	''' Comments:'''
	Background on the situation(although it might be irrelevant to the actual report):,
	,,
	] 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	'''It is lie!''': 1st revert - 27 December, 3rd and 5th revert is not revert. This is actualization. This is previous version , letter is reverts from R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht). I did not make 3RR: see: , - My 3 corner edition and 3 reverts from R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht) - in draught 24h, 28 december 2006. I did not make 3 reverts, this is 3 corner edition. ] 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	:Oh yes, just above the actual report is ] 03:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	Let me condense what I said above.(I Removed it) '''BOTH''' users appear to have violated 3RR on the article in question. --]] 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Let me also add the suggestion that possibly instead of either or both of the users being blocked, that this and the other pages involved(listed by LUCPOL in the report above) be protected. This would allow the users to discuss their issue with eachother and hopefully come to a compromise. --]] 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	24h ] 11:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result: no block)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|De_La_Salle-Santiago_Zobel_School}}. {{3RRV\|Mithril_Cloud}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	<!--
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	-->

	''' Comments:''' User insists the use of Infobox Secondary school template even if article is clearly that of a K-12 institution.<!-- Optional -->

	'''Invalid statement'''. Reporting user obviously did not understood 3RR fully. Interestingly enough, the 2nd revert: was actually an edit of the reporting user, making his report invalid. --]] 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	'''Valid statement'''. Revert pertains to the article, not to specific users. ] 09:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	*And have I reverted more than three times on the article? No. So it's invalid. --]] 09:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	**Again, does not pertain to '''you''' reverting the article but the article being reverted. ] 09:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	***I am the one being reported here and you say that the report does not pertain to '''my''' edits? Care to elaborate? --]] 10:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	****I shall not waste any more time here. I shall leave this to the admins for them to referee. If they deem that my report is valid, then it is. If not, then it's not. End of discussion. :) ] 10:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	No block. Next time use diffs not versions. The one closest to a block here is Gomez ] 11:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Thank you. --]] 12:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] - ] (Result: 24h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Paul Thompson (researcher)}}. {{3RRV\|NuclearUmpf}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

	* Warning link:

	* Self revert oppourtunity:

	* Self revert rejected:


	''' Comments:''' User incorrectly believes he can revert as many times as he wants on the article as long as he reverts different kinds of changes. This is not accurate. Unwilling to engage in discussion on talk page beyond brinkmanship. ] - ] 18:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	:User is vandalizing an article by removing sourced content that he claims does not exist for instance. For instance in revert 4 I was readding a quote he removed without cause, stating source doesnt support statement. However the sources first line states: '''He never studied, trained, or even had any intention to become an authority on terrorism.''' The source clearly states he is an authority on terrorism, so why is this removed? It seems Hipocrit has decided to vandalize the article after TheronJ explained my creation of it was within guidelines. TheronJ's statement shows my reversions was preventing blanking of the page. --]<s>]</s> 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	::In that same edit the user changed the fact that he was invited to a congressional briefing with the following wording '''"In 2005, Thompson was asked to speak at an informal briefing organized by Congresswoman "''', he even argues on the talk page that it was not a Congressional Briefing, yet the title of the source and the source itself states otherwise. Source is '''^ July 22nd Congressional Briefing: The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens' Response - Did They Get It Right?. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (July 22, 2005).''' --]<s>]</s> 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	:::Back room deals and black mail attempts: stating he will drop report if I agree to do what he says, this is surely not in the spirit of WP:3RR. --]<s>]</s> 19:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	H kindly offered you the opportunity to self-rv. You foolishly didn't take it. 24h ] 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] <small>]</small> (Result:24h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Paul_Thompson_(researcher)}}. {{3RRV\|Hipocrite}}:

	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert: (reverts to .

	''' Comments:''' Part of massive edit war. --] <small>]</small> 20:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: Please use UT for the times; otherwise it makes it more difficult for the decideing admin to compare the diffs. The fourth is close enough to be a revert.
	:: Blocked 24h.--] 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] (Result: 8h)===

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Transnistria}}. {{3RRV\|Pernambuco}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	* Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Not a new user, however I warned him

	''' Comments:''' Reverts are mainly about: Removing Border issues section, expanding referendum section, removing US Department of State position and opinion of Yakovlev, removing travel warnings. Some reverts are combined with some edits, like adding an infobox in reverts 2 and 3 (you need to scroll to see the reverts). I consider those reverts as vandalism also, and I and other editors as well had discussions with Pernambuco in his talk page without convincing him to change his behaviour. In revert 5 he even claim that he has my agreement for the revert, which is totally untrue - I agreed with him in a small issue (using Dniester instead of Nistru) but clearly told him not to remove the paragraphs . See also disscussion in talk page about (where he even denied he deleted) , . In Talk he agreed that the person who delete a paragraph should explain why , however he kept deleting without explaining why.--] 21:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	8h ] 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	:I have unblocked him because {{user\|Diana Teodorescu}} was a sockpuppet of the banned user ]. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 00:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:«»](<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub>) (Result: 24h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Vince Russo}}. {{3RRV\|69.123.136.59}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	* Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

	''' Comments:''' Continually adding a section that is by no means notable, at least not to this degree. Despite claims that "theres like 12 of us doing this" all of the changes are coming from the same IP.
	:Further comment, I'm almost positive, though I have no proof, that this is coming from a specific wrestling message board. The same people who continually vandalized the ] article

	24h ] 23:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	=== ] reported by User: ] (Result: 24hr) ===

	{{Article\|Dusty Springfield}}
	Sorry if I am not doing this right....There are many reverts (many more than 3RR today alone).....Please go to the user's contribution page. Other than edits to blank user's talk page (another no-no), user has only edited this article. Appears to be in a content dispute with ] over external links. ] 00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
	* performed by ], 24 hr duration. --] <small>]</small> 08:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] (Result:16h)===

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Thessaloniki}}. {{3RRV\|Politis}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert: deleted link. No edit summary.
	* 2nd revert: deleted link. No edit summary.
	* 3rd revert: deleted link. Edit summary: ''('sigh' please read Politis in talk page of a few days ago about that link)'', though I could not find the comments to which he was referring.
	* 4th revert: deleted link (and altered wording). Edit summary: ''(compromise and clarity)'' though there is no compromise that looks anything like this on the talk page.


	''' Comments:'''
	* Each revert removes the link to ].
	* ] is not a new user (approx 2000 edits since December 2005).
	* When I pointed out on his talk page that he had violated 3RR and suggested that he revert himself, instead he responded with , indicating that deleting the link repeatedly does not meet his definition of 'revert.' Even were this true (I don't know) this sounds like gaming the spirit of 3RR and a likely intention to continue doing so.
	* Please be aware that the edit summaries and his note on my talk page do not necessarily reflect either the changes or the discussion on the talk page.

	: 16h.--] 08:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] (Result: 8h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|British_Isles}}. {{3RRV\|MelForbes}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
	* ] is not a new user.
	<!--
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	-->

	''' Comments:''' Reverts are to the wording of the first sentence in the article. User:MelForbes is pushing PoV that the term in question, "British Isles" is only used sometimes. This issue had already been thrashed out a month ago (30th November, section 14 of ]. While the term is certainly rejected by some in Ireland, it is still the term for the group of islands, '''is''' used by some in Ireland, and by a majority in the UK. Not to mention the rest of the world.{{unsigned\|Bastun}}

	:User:], has shadowed me before on WP. I haven't reverted 3 times, and I am trying to edit to a NPOV situation. I totally reject User:], and i believe that he should be ignored on this occasion. ] 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

	::Excuse me?! ''You'' showed up on ''my'' talk page (with an insult) on 18th August 06. I've only ever been to yours in response to some questions from you put on mine. As for "shadowing" you - I'm Irish, you're Irish, we both edit articles of Irish interest. ] 02:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

	:::You have been deeply offensive to me a couple of months ago on the British Isles talk page. I just don't have the time to find those edits now. But if i have to, I will. ] 02:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

	:::: This is the second or third time you've alleged this, again without backing it up with any evidence. See here where I ask you to point them out, and you fail to respond? Please do show me where I've attacked you. ] 15:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

	You obviously have reverted 4 times; 8h for a first offence ] 10:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	I have edited, not reverted. MY edit has now bee accepted. ] 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
	I want to make an objection against ]'s decision, how is that done please. This sort of nonsense is doing big damage to the WP project. ] 19:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
	:You could report report it at ], but I don't think that will do any good. From what it looks like to me, the block was justified. You made 4 reverts and were blocked. Those "edits" you speak of count as reverts under ]. --]] 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Well, firstly, I reverted what I believe to be a ''sock'' editor. I won't say whom at the moment. Then Bastun started reverting back to the "sock" edits. ] 19:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::I see no evidence of sockpuppetry, nor do I see any users on that page who even edit from the same country as the IP. Do you have any actual evidence, you really can't make that claim on a hunch. --]] 19:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::That's not fully correct. WP allows a "sock revert" for suspected sockpuppet, and it's not counted as a revert. I cannot state who the sock is a the moment, as I would have to go to checkuser first, and it seemed hardly worth it at the time. And checkuser is not always conclusive. It could be classed as a minor sock. ] 19:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Actually it is fully true, you need at least SOME proof of sockpuppetry, you can't just throw the claim out there with no actual proof. There appears to be none, as no other users on that article were even from the same country as the IP and it is not a known proxy. --]] 19:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::::See, that is a prob with WP. An editor cannot do something in good faith?, I didn't want to write ''sock'' in the edit because of the proof issue. Then WP urges its editors to be bold. It's a no-win situation. Stick ones neck out, and chop chop. ] 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::Actually, you're assuming bad faith when you seem to have assumed that the user was a sock. Even if you had noted that in your summary, without proof, you would have still been blocked. Like I said before, you can always report this at ] if you think there has been wrongdoing. --]] 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::As I said, it's a no-win situation, the chicken and the egg conundrum. An editor makes a very simple rv to an anonymous user and suspected sock, then another editor with a axe to grind makes a report. Misplaced Pages has lost some very excellent editors in the past over silly little things that go out of hand. I may not bother much more with it, I'll think about it. ] 20:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	Users 203.220.171.80 and 203.220.171.90 '''are sockpuppets''' of one another. Whether malign or benign is debatable, but the broad principle is correct. Some users use dynamic IP addresses to avoid traceability and to incur vandalism and pov into articles.
	Details;
	IP Address : '''203.220.171.80''' (80.171.220.203.dial.dynamic.acc01-aitk-gis.comindico.com.au )
	ISP : COMindico Australia
	Organization : COMindico Australia
	Location : AU, Australia
	City : Melbourne, 07 -
	Latitude : 37°81'67" South
	Longitude : 144°96'67" East
	IP Address : '''203.220.171.90''' (90.171.220.203.dial.dynamic.acc01-aitk-gis.comindico.com.au )
	ISP : COMindico Australia
	Organization : COMindico Australia
	Location : AU, Australia
	City : Melbourne, 07 -
	Latitude : 37°81'67" South
	Longitude : 144°96'67" East ] 12:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::And your point is? 203.220.171.80 made (from all I can see, good-faith) edits to the previous version, explained in his/her edit summary. You reverted four times, despite me bringing it up on the talk page. I reported you here. 203.220.171.90 (almost definitely the same editor as 203.220.171.80) later reverted you. The point is, you still broke the 3RR.
	:::If you're assuming the 203.220.171.x users are also me, I can assure you you're incorrect, and have no problem with a checkuser being done to verify that all my edits originated from my home IP address, which will be shown to be Esat/BT (or whatever they're calling themselves today). ] 13:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::No Baston, I do not assume that it is you. It has been established in other cases of WP that IP addresses can be sockpuppets too. This case is no different. Technically speaking 203.220.171.80 is a different personality from 203.220.171.90, as different as chalk and cheese, but I bet that they are the one and same user. ] 13:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::: I won't take the bet because I agree with you. Point is - you reverted four times after 203.220.171.80's edits. 203.220.171.90 didn't show up till after I'd reported you and so is irrelevant to this report. ] 13:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::::They are still sockpuppets, my hunch was correct, and very ''able Wikipedians'' at that. The user is no newcomer. ] 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] (Result: 3h)===

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Ultimate_Spider-Man_(story_arcs)}}. {{3RRV\|A_Man_In_Black}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	''' Comments:''' He didn't like the result of ]. He's been trying to do this for a while; . - ] 08:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

	3h ] 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] <small>]</small> (Result:)===

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Chinese Misplaced Pages}}. {{3RRV\|SummerThunder}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:
	Note that some of these also mess around with unrelated sections of the article or reformat it, but they all add the Moderators subsection.
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

	by ] for both 3RR and ] violations.

	''' Comments:''' All of the above edits are part of an ongoing campaign by this user to discredit the zh.wiki administration as "government spies" for banning him. He's also either in 3RR violation or close to it (didn't check) on other pages such as ], and has made numerous vitriolic comments on the ] such as this attack rant. He has been removed from both zh.wiki and meta for similar POV pushing and NPA violation, and warned by several administrators in his time here that his behaviour is unacceptable, so a more serious penalty than the standard 24hr slap on the wrist may be preferable. --] <small>]</small> 08:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any reverts per se. None of the edits listed match up with other edits this user made. Also, please please do not change the times when you report someone for 3RR. It makes it very hard for us admins to match up the edits you are citing. Thanks. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Alphonso_de_Spina}}. {{3RRV\|Kendrick7}}:

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

	24h ] 10:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:«»](<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub>) (Result: 8h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Vince Russo}}. {{3RRV\|DanRusso}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*Warned

	''' Comments:''' Pretty sure this is coming from the same place as before, but have no proof. Article may need to be semi-protected down the line.

	8h ] 20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] reported by User ]


	===] reported by User:] (Result:Warning)===
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Breast Implant}}. {{3RRV\|Jance}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

	Curtis has clearly had a warning (just below). ''Every other editor'' who has edited this agreed that a summary be added, instead of extremely lengthy & possibly copyright violation text. There have been numerous complaints by Ronz, me, l'cast, Hughgr, Wildnox on the .
	He has continued to be insulting, and aggressive in reverting - after ALL OF THIS. He obviously has no problem flaunting WIkipedia. I do not see a warning on his page, but I ask anyone to look at all t he discussion here, all the complaints, the consensus on his edits, and tell me if he is complying with WIkipedia. I can't believe anyone would do this.] 19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Breast Implant}}. {{3RRV\|Jance}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

	''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
	</pre>

	The ] has persistently reverted necessary changes to this article and violated the 3RR. --] 00:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	:First, the user was never warned and therefore is very unlikely to be blocked. Second, it appears you have violated 3RR on the article in question. --]] 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Thank you, WIldnox. I have opened an on Curtis, because of a barrage of insults, ridicule, and general abuse, as well as 3RR, and editing an article after someone (not I) added a copyright tag because of his edits. Most recently, he libeled an editor in another article. He has also followed me to yet another article for the sole purpose of harassment. This is already an article that has been contentious. He changed portions, without discussion, that had been discussed and debated at great length for months.] 02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

	I don't understand the double-standard. Whether or not I have violated 3RR is irrelevant - I haven't violated 3RR, but if you have evidence that I have, then you're welcome to block me as well. But that doens't change the fact that Jance has demonstrably violated 3RR and should be blocked. --] 03:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Please remember to (when applicable, and in this case, it is) add a "diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. ] 04:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly."

	::Sorry, this was my first. I normally wouldn't have reported it, but the actions of the user in question were pretty OTT. What does it mean "diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here"? --] 04:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It means you have to show a diff of a warning, unless you can prove he/she knew of 3RR prior to the 4th revert. --]] 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

	:Both Jance and Curtis Bledsoe have contributed to 9 reverts over a variety of edits (no single point more than twice I agree) - see ] - do these really consitute 3RR or AN/I consideration ? ] <sup> ] </sup> 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I have no idea if this is closed or not. But I welcome anyone to see ] and Curtis' edits there. ] 17:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] (Result: no block)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	Template:Philosophy_navigation. {{3RRV\|SteveWolfer}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* and another:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	Diffs not versions please. This isn't in 24h or even very close. But it is a stupid edit war, and you both risk being blocked if you don't try to work it out on talk ] 11:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Indus Valley Civilization}}. {{3RRV\|Nadirali}}:

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

	''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->

	24h ] 11:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Japan}}. {{3RRV\|HongQiGong}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* '''1st Incident:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	* '''2nd Incident:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	<!--
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	-->

	''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
	*HongQiGong appologised after the 1st incident . But he broke 3RR in the 2nd incident.--] 19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	**Comment on the second "incident" - Notice the time stamp between the 1st and the 4th edits, there is more than a 24-hour gap. And my 5th edit was not a revert, but a new edit. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	***HongQiGong kept adding 2 sentences which were not new. Those were unilateral additions.--] 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	****The edit between my fifth edit and other edits are different, and offered as a compromise. Also, I'd like to point out, that Endroit never warned me of 3RR or notified me of his 3RR report here. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	*****We're requesting 3rd opinion from any admin. HongQiGong is a repeat violator of 3RR, as he has been blocked before.--] 20:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	*****(Edit conflict with above response)But you have been given warnings in the past for other 3RR incidents, you don't need to be warned every time, just the first time. There is no requirement to notify users of the report either. --]] 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	******Don't get me wrong, if an admin feels I should be blocked, then I won't argue with that. My edits are in good faith and Endroit here is basically trying to use 3RR to prevent an edit that he disagrees with, notice the revert-warring on the article. And I do maintain that my latest edit, which prompted this report, is a different edit offered as a compromise. Finally, I'm only citing what I read on the top of this page, which, to be honest, makes Endroit's motives questionable, if he has neither warned me nor notified me of this report:
	******''Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned. If you report a 3RR violation here it is good form to inform the person you are reporting of this on their talk page and provide a link to this page ].'' ] <small>(] - ])</small> 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	*******The thing is you have been warned in the past, there is no requirement to do so for every new violation, as you can see in the template below it's only needed for new users. Also good form does not mean requirement, though I admit good form is always preferred. --]] 20:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	*******HongQiGong, I'd like to see you in the talk pages AND GAIN CONSENSUS first before making those edits. And yes, your addition about "weaving cloth", etc. (2000 years ago) was repeated 4 times in 24 hours.--] 20:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

	24h ] 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] (Result:24h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Qur'an_desecration_controversy_of_2005}}. {{3RRV\|67.175.216.90}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->


	''' Comments:'''
	User is adding an irrelevant link to the article; he tried to do so months ago and was warned to stop. He participated in discussion only briefly, to accuse those reverting him of being abusive and bullying, and never responded to the arguments against his addition to the article. He came back today making the same edits without discussing them. ] 00:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	:since csloat is telling essentially the same fibs he told , i'll quote from what i've written in response already.

	:''i am in technical violation of 3RR (i've only reverted twice "today"), but i began seeking mediation prior to my first revert. in contrast, csloat has one revert left before violation. he has so far not returned to the talk page to explain his behavior. he has refused to communicate directly with me, but has shadowed me from page to page reverting my edits and telling fibs like the one above about the matter. ...when csloat testifies that my addition of a single, relevant cross-link is "disruptive," that is a chracterization, albeit one that fails the standard of reasonability. ... but when he asserts that i "refused to explain" my "actions in talk", it is - i really don't want to use harsh language - but it is a lie, and one which can be exposed by simply reviewing the talk page.''

	:i hope this can be of help in administrating the issue. it is my understanding that deliberately reverting only three times per day, but in a nonetheless persistent and aggressive manner is called "gaming" 3RR and is considered a violation of its own sort. ] 04:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	::I see no evidence of mediation, nor is it relevant to the 3RR. The evidence above shows four reverts in 24 hours. ] 05:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	::: Clear cut case, it seems to me. 24h.--]

	===] reported by User:] (Result:24h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Palestine:Peace_Not_Aparthied}}. {{3RRV\|Shamir1}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	Comments: User has been warned by others over 3RR, and continued after 4RR.

	If one actually looks, not all of the edits contained the same worded material. The last two in specific, have the information re-worded as per the discussion, which ] failed to mention. Reasons for inclusion of the short and sourced material (as per the inclusion of parallel/similar and longer material added and kept by others) can be found on ]. --] 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
	* 24h.--] 07:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Intelligent design}}. {{3RRV\|Raspor}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:
	* 8th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	<!--
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	-->
	* Diff of 1st 3RR warning:
	* Diff of 2nd 3RR warning:

	''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->

	This user has been warned in the past about the 3RR rule, and continues to violate it.

	In addition, I edited] original complaint, since it was not done in the manner required for this report. It's time to block Raspor. Please.

	::: Now 7. ] 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	24h ] 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Bahá'í Faith}}. {{3RRV\|TrueBahai}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert: (this edit done by his IP ] as can be seen by his previous edits in the day)


	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->

	24h, on the presumption that the anon is him ] 09:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: 24h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Organization_XIII}}. {{3RRV\|Emokid200618}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	''' Comments:''' User has been banned for 3RR before, thus understands the rule. His edits were against the consensus of the editors of this article. ] <sup>(] ) (])</sup> 06:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	24h ] 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute}}. {{3RRV\|Armon}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert: (lots of removals)
	* 2nd revert: (more targeted removals)
	* 3rd revert: (single paragraph removal)
	* 4th revert: (single paragraph removal)
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	<!--
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	-->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	''' Comments:''' There is discussion of proper references and accusations of OR but many of the things Armon is repeatedly removing are properly referenced, see the last two diffs here specifically for a clear case of edit summaries containing untrue accusations of OR or POV: , . The paragraph in those two reports has been removed 4 times by Armon, thus while there is complex partial reverts some paragraphs have been consistently targeted by Armon. Thus the link given as the previous version is not really clearly the version Armon is reverting to. --] 16:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Comment:''' The user is well aware of the 3RR rule and has been blocked on 2 prior occasions, see . --] 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	24h (even though your prev-version is wrong...) ] 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] (Result:)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Saddam_Hussein}}. {{3RRV\|SqueakBox}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	<!--
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	-->
	* Diff of 3RR warning: User is experienced and aware of 3rr

	Comments: User has been attempting to push POV edits into the article. Above DIFFS are only a subset of one group of related edits within the 24 hour period. All together this user had edited this article 9 times during the last 24 hour period removing negaative information (not reverting vandalism) and inserting positive spin edits into the article. This is an experienced user who pushes a similar point of view on various articles and is well aware of 3RR. See Block Log. . Additionally, user appears to be have been using sockpuppet (has also been found to engage in sockpuppetry in the past (see block log)). The following reinsert with the same text was made by a different account ] right after Squeakbox's edit had been reverted and included the summary "((rv) I added a source of this at the bottom of the page, I didn't make it up.". The referred to source was the one previously added by Squeakbox at 00:44, 1 January 2007 (not by Crud3w4re), so there would be no reason for a different user to claim that "I" added it unless the info was accidentally reinserted under the wrong account (sockpuppet). This suspected sockpuppet incident is NOT included in the above reverts. <!-- Optional --> ] 21:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

	Not clear that rv 3 is a revert ] 09:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Respectfully, I don't think the 3RR rules require the reverts to be identical. (Any four edits to a page in a 24 hour period (reverting vandalism notwithstanding) would do. In this case, they are substantially similar, editing the article to insert text questioning the trial's fairness undoing the changes of multiple editors to the same text block. User actually made 9 edits to the page that day, though I didn't list them because I personally do not believe that completely unrelated edits should be counted as reverts. These however, are not unrelated and deal with the same paragraph and the same general idea. ] 17:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	:: Its not any 4 edits, its any 4 reverts. And I don't see what #3 is a revert of ] 17:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	I am confident I dint revert anything 4 times or even close. Perhaps tehr editor accusing me of POV pushing is actually the one responsible for the pOV pushing here. All my edits are perfectly okay attempts to NPOV the article. Please check the meaning of the word revert in a disctionary, Caper, as according to your definition any prolific editor would be open to said charges, ] 22:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	::IMHO, Not over 3RR. I would suggest you continue discussing the matter in a friendly manner in the talk page. Regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by User:] (Result: 24h)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Joseph_Stalin}}. {{3RRV\|Fox33}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to: . All reverts remove 'dictator' from the intro.
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	<!--
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	-->
	* Diff of 3RR warning: Almost certainly a sock puppet of {{user\|Jacob Peters}}, who loves nothing more than to remove 'dictator' from the intro of this article, obviously somebody's sock puppet given the contribution history.

	''' Comments:''' This user is probably {{user\|Jacob Peters}} socking for (hopefully) the last time. I'm filing this in hopes for a quicker block while the sock report is processed. See the RFCU ] for the gory history. - ] 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	24h ] 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

	===] and ] reported by User:] (Result:No Block)===

	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Mami Wata}}. {{3RRV\|BrianSmithson}} {{3RRV\|Mwhs}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:

	<!--
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	-->


	''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
	Both ] and ] appear to be involved in an edit war on the ] article

	:Appears to be no 3RR violation. Maybe take this to ]? --]] 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Correction, ] has violated 3RR. ] has not. --]] 01:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::Not saying heavy-handed enforcement is required, but thinking might be good for a neutral admin (someone not involved in the article) to weigh in, explain that constant reverts are bad for Misplaced Pages, give a warning, ask for a cooling-off, etc. Best --] 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
	::: * No Diffs. Upon inspection, not even close to 3RR. No Block. However, the plaintiff is correct. Constant reverts are bad for Misplaced Pages, You are hereby warned, please cool off.--] 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::Ah, I see, I thought they were all the same day. --]] 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Sample violation report to copy ==

	<pre>

	===] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===
	<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->

	] violation on
	{{Article\|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV\|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:
	<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

	* Previous version reverted to:
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	<!--
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	-->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->

	</pre>

	Note on completing a 3RR report:
	* Copy the template above, the text within but not including <nowiki><pre>...</pre></nowiki>
	* Replace <nowiki>http://DIFFS</nowiki> with a link to the ] and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
	* We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace <nowiki>http://VersionLink</nowiki> with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
	* Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory

Latest revision as of 14:26, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.

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

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

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

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

"I "tried to delete me reporting them""

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

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

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

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

The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level

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

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

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

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

I notify the user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: