Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:56, 28 January 2022 editUsername006 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,948 edits →User:KingdomScribe101 reported by User:Killarnee (Result: )← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:30, 10 January 2025 edit undoPhilipPirrip (talk | contribs)27 edits →User:Theonewithreason reported by User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} (Result: ): new sectionTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
Line 5: Line 5:
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 446 |counter = 491
|algo = old(2d) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f |key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid=" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>khi
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) == == ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Circumcision}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|MrOllie}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''

'''Previous version reverted to:'''


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' , , , ,


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
Obviously circumcision is a controversial topic, so I'm sorry to rope you guys in. The newish user named KlayCax made some problematic edits which I reverted. Here and here were pretty ], and this was specifically counter to the listed source.
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
My reverts were reverted because MrOllie says "I see no good reason to blanket revert". WP:BRD isn't required he says. I mention ], ], and ]. Also I did ask KlayCax before to please edit more carefully ].


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
So I actually made a list of 10+ problems with the edits here . There's 3 obvious failures of WP:MEDRS, one obvious failure of WP:RS/AC, many cases of removing high quality sources, adding text not in the source, removing clearly sources material, and changing the text from newer sourced to older sources against WP:AGEMATTERS.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Like I showed in the diffs, I requested 4 times for a dispute resolution if they weren't using WP:BRD. MrOllie is still holding on to bad edits despite clearly being shown the issue. What do you suggest I do? I'm not a very experienced editor and I'm at a loss for what to do. Maybe you don't need to impose a block, but can you suggest another alternative that isn't reverting. Is arbitration a solution? Because these editors aren't giving any.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Am I allowed to mention that MrOllie has had other problems with edit warring ,
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
User Alexbrn is in the pro circumcision POV camp, although he's not part of the edit warring.


:'''Comment''' - It appears there is robust discussion on the talk page, so at this point ] should be the path that is taken. Try breaking your edit into smaller pieces, and gaining consensus for individual changes or reverts, rather than as one large revert. ] (]) 13:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:: I'm actually very pro ]. The question is if the originals should be reverted, or my reverts should be reverted? I suspect that this will a point of contention with other editors. Thanks. ] (]) 13:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
:::Well, someone made an edit, you reverted, a second editor reverted you, and a third editor expressed support for reverting you. At this point, it appears that consensus is against you. Again, at this point I suggest you seek consensus for individual small reverts rather than a blanket revert. ] (]) 13:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
:::: Thanks. I appreciate it. ] (]) 13:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:*There is certainly no violation by MrOllie, who made three reverts over nine days. Please compare ]. {{u|Stix1776}}, I hope ScottishFinnishRadish's advice above is useful to you. FYI, yes, you're allowed to mention your opponent's history if it's relevant. But going back nine years to do so is not to the purpose, and does not make a good impression. ] &#124; ] 05:16, 25 January 2022 (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)
:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Al-Tirmidhi}} '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|93.22.38.147}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
# 21:28, 24 January 2022‎ (Added "Arab" + non-] source)
# {{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"
# 21:25, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
# {{diff2|1267995715|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# 16:30, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
# {{diff2|1267994453|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
# 19:27, 24 January 202 (Added "Arab" + non-] source)
# 16:30, 24 January 2022‎ (Added "Arab" + non-] source)
# 15:27, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
# 15:25, 24 January 2022‎ (added "Arab" + non-] source)
# 15:13, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
# 15:11, 24 January 2022 (added "Arab" + non-] source)
# 13:59, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
# 13:58, 24 January 2022‎ (added "Arab" + non-] source)
# 12:24, 24 January 2022] (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
# 11:51, 24 January 2022 (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
# 10:41, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed "Persian")


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1067632977|12:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing." # {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
# {{diff2|1067654198|14:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)}} ""

'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''




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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
Said IP keeps removing the long-standing and well-sourced mention of the word "Persian" backed up a renowned Cambridge University Press source ('']''). I even added a direct quote from page 471 for readability, yet the IP continues to falsely accuse the multiple editors who revert him of "it is not written he was Persian on page 471",- as well as "Persian propaganda" and "We can not check the source". While trying to remove both the source and the word, said IP persistently tries to insert the word "Arab" accompanied by a non-] source. Said IP has been reverted and warned on several occasions, unfortunately to no avail. - ] (]) 15:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
*{{AN3|b}} – 72 hours by ]. Meanwhile, another admin has semiprotected the article for two weeks. This appears to be nationalist edit warring (Arab vs. Persian). ] (]) 03:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Armero tragedy}} <br />
#
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Dora the Axe-plorer}}
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067776643&oldid=1067776193
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067774860&oldid=1067771187
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067728257&oldid=1067699616
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067776193&oldid=1067774860


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
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)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> I have never made a complaint here XD, the point is that this user, I don't know what her problem is, I put the respective sources to my edits, but Dora doesn't want to understand. I would prefer a thousand times that an administrator corrects me. I'm asking for help here, I don't know if this already covers the 3 edits and edit war rule but it's frustrating that I put the respective sources of my edits and someone else reverses what I work so hard to research and edit.--] (]) 16:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)<br />


: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)
:I wrote in the final revert edit summary to have the sources '''properly cited''' (aka filled up using the correct citations template with the source title, date, author, publisher, etc). Clearly you just didn't follow this and simply added the URL to the source. ] (]) 21:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
::It's far better to have a source, even if it's bare url, than to have none? Bare URLs can be tagged. Or can be easily filled in with a tool like or ? ] (]) 21:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
::I looked at your other edits and you still gave the bare URLs but since they weren't reverted like I'd expected, I shall restore the article to your version with the proper citations. ] (]) 21:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
:Just looked at the history; there is no 3RR. The first revert is within my rights under ]. I do not bare any responsibility to find sources to verify additions that have zero verifiability, that lies on the back of IP. All three reverts are in the interest of maintaining the FA-class status of the article ]. ] (]) 23:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
::The edit summary for your was "New additions are completely unreferenced." Good call. But the IP then responded '''by adding the requested sources''', albeit non-English language and bare urls? ] (]) 23:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
:::Sourcing and references are very good in the article. It should be kept that way throughout for an FA-class work. I removed them because they were not up to standard with the rest of the article. ] (]) 23:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
::::Fair point. I've not checked the sources for ], so that's needed anyway. And I don't know if the material supported is notable or not. I guess the IP just felt slightly ], which is why they came here. ] (]) 23:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
:*{{AN3|nv}} – Nobody broke 3RR. But if reverting continues, blocks are possible. The filing IP is editing from the range ]. There is nothing from either party on the article talk page. ] (]) 19:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Socialism}} <br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Precious delicate sweet little baby}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
#
## {{diff2|1268186883|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
#
## {{diff2|1268202556|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
#
## {{diff2|1268202677|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
: etc.
## {{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:'''
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"


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


== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
This is not a ] violation, however user {{userlink|Precious delicate sweet little baby}} (further referred to as Precious) has been edit warring their way to force their way. I have created an RfC to try to establish a consensus, however Precious has ignored the RfC and is still pushing a variation of their version, despite their changes being reverted by several users, some of them insisting they discuss them first and seek approval (e.g. ). So far nobody has agreed with Precious regarding those changes, therefore there is clearly no consensus. ] shows the edit warring across several days. I don't want to get involved in another back and forth, so I marked the contentious sentence in the article, and reporting the situation here. ] (]) 18:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
:1) False claim that I have "ignored the RfC." I've been amply commenting in the RfC, when any argument came up. More than Bezet has. As evidence, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Socialism#RfC_on_sentence_discussing_the_definition_of_socialism
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}
:2) "So far nobody has agreed with Precious regarding those changes, therefore there is clearly no consensus." Obviously there's no consensus, by evidence of the fact that you revert my edits. But there's no policy requirement that there be consensus before making an edit. (Look up BRD). And, there's only 3 of us that have any interest in the RfC. You, and then one other person that really hasn't offered much comment.
:3) "despite their changes being reverted by several users" Nope. Not that that's relevant to anything.


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:4) My last revert was to revert out a edit comment that I was "rude". Bezet is out line, attempting to denigrate me in the edit comments.


:5) Bezet appears to be trying to use an RfC for some purpose it wasn't designed for, apparently to try to stop me from editing. The RfC process was not designed as a way to prevent another editors from editing. An RfC is supposed to be simply a way to get comments in order to try to come up with a consensus. Obviously, I've been trying to do that through my arguments in the RfC.


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


:6) Bezet has been reverting as much as I have. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Socialism&action=history If I'm "edit warring," then he is to. '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
] (]) 18:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
::By ignoring the RfC I meant that you are ignoring the attempt at reaching a consensus and forcing your version instead. ] (]) 19:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
:::Again, that's false. My attempts to reach a consensus are there in writing in the RfC. And, me doing an edit is not "forcing" any changes. You're free to revert. On the other hand, you're literally trying to "force" me to refrain from editing, with this action seeking to employ some kind of police power. ] (]) 20:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
::::That's not how ] works. You made a bold edit, it was reverted, now you discuss. You don't continue to make the same edit while there is discussion on-going. That's not forcing you to refrain from editing, it's saying "don't make that specific edit, which does not have consensus at this time, until there is a consensus one way or another from the on-going RFC on the topic." It's a little bit different than saying you can't edit. ] (]) 20:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::Just a note. The BRD article "is not one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community," it says at the top. ] (]) 20:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
::::::] {{tq|This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy... Misplaced Pages encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.}} ] (]) 20:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I've been discussing in the RfC. And that Edit War policy doesn't say anything about not being allowed to make edits while an RfC is going on. ] (]) 20:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
::::::::If you're reverting back to the version you boldly edited, then per {{tq|An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts}}, you're edit warring. I'm a completely uninvolved third party here, with no skin in the game, and I'm just advising you that trying to make an edit that there is currently an RFC to deal with isn't a great idea. Take that as you will. ] (]) 20:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


I edited ] and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following ]. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
:Regarding the claim that "My last revert was to revert out a edit comment that I was 'rude'": there was no personal attack or anything remotely similar present in the ''text'' of the edit, so there is no exemption from 3RR that may be claimed here (although, as noted, there isn't a brightline 3RR violation by Pdslb, either). —''']''' (]) 20:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
:Precious, you mentioned that BRD is not policy. That is true. However, CONSENSUS is. A subsection of CONSENSUS discusses what to do if a consensus related to article content can't be reached, "''In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. ''" Basically a BOLD edit is assumed to have consensus until someone challenges via a revert and/or on the talk page. At that point policy says we don't have consensus thus policy dictates the change should we reverted. While BRD isn't policy, the R in the middle comes straight from the CONSENSUS policy. Your proposed change might be "right", BeŻet's support of the stable text may be "wrong" but until a new consensus is shown (and the RfC is a good tool to establish the consensus) the long standing text should be left in place. ] (]) 21:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


BRD isn't policy, but it describes a situation that is within policy and what policy says....that the third step after "BR" must be for someone who wants to pursue the initial edit, I.E. that policy generally discourages or forbids "BRR". <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 22:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC) 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)
*{{AN3|nv}} – Pdslb did not break 3RR, but the advice of ] appears correct: "I'm just advising you that trying to make an edit that there is currently an RFC to deal with isn't a great idea". ] (]) 21:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi) ==


:]
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Kumiho}} <br />
:"""
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|75.172.13.103}}
:] 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)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
::Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
::Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
::I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
::3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with ] (]) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}}. This report is a mess. ] (]) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment ] (]) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{re|NotQualified}} Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--] (]) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. ] (]) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
*::::# I add templates to an article with faults
*::::# The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
*::::# I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
*::::# They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
*::::# I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
*::::# Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
*::::# I notify the user
*::::# I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
*::::# Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
*::::# You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
*::::I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
*:::::That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
*:::::I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
*:::::I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. ] (]) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#
#
#
#


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
# {{diff2|1268272867|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
# {{diff2|1268269093|23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268248948|21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
The following user has constantly been replacing the originally sourced statement in the article with the user's own claim without providing any valid sources. In both of the article's edit summary and user's talk page, I have asked the user multiple times to not alter the sourced content and provide the valid sources to support the information he/she is replacing, but the user has been keep replacing the original contents with neither discussion nor response.
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
*'''Result:''' Page semiprotected one month due to IP edit warring. ] (]) 21:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock blocked) ==
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Albert Agarunov}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Temporary tempuras}}

'''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:''' This user received multiple warnings on his talk page, which he deleted:


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


:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> New user making POV edits and edit warring. 3RR violation. ]] 09:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
:And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. ] (]) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. ] (]) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. ] (]) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at ], not one as you claim. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. ] (]) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article ']' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
I will use Translator. I already explained my reasons: "Biased government sources. False content of sources. Anasynchronistical content. Deleted citation needed sources." But editors Nicat49, Adakiko say I have no reason for removal. I clearly explained, but they did not answer. My hand was forced. Not POV, and if they have problems, the could say. But they did not. I sorry for editing, but my addition is valid, and experienced users bully me and accuse me of mistruths. Not problem here Translated with DeepL Translator] (]) 17:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
*Sock blocked.--] (]) 19:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tur Abdin<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Aramean81<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}


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


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''


Article ]:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
#
#
#


Article ]:
#
#
#


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


Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> New user. 3RR violation. ] (]) 15:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 15:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Alauddin Khalji}} <br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Basedafghan}}


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


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Alauddin_Khalji&diff=1068283448&oldid=1054594722


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Basedafghan&diff=1068283594&oldid=1066730574


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Persistent and disruptive editing of page over sporadic periods of time, often erases content as a whole, basically vandalism.] (]) 15:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


He is still doing it after on the page. ] (]) 21:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours for edit warring. Basedafghan promotes the Pashtun origin of Alauddin Khalji instead of a Turkish origin. His user page (translated) says: "Khalajians and Ghorians are all Pashtuns and the founder of Ghorians was the Syrian emir of the Pashtun people". While insisting on the 'Pashtun' label for ] this editor . ] (]) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result:Blocked) ==
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That is because {{u|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{u|Shecose}}, {{tqq|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Apollo Quiboloy}}
::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*I realize the policy states, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts'', right? '''This is three, not more than three.''' It shows the desperation. ] (]) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|KingdomScribe101}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
# {{diff2|1068371366|02:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 1068371134 by ] (])
# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
# "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
# "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1068369603|02:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)}} "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on ]."
# {{diff2|1068370680|02:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."


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


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.


Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
Doesn't want to discuss, just edits as they pleased. Seems like COI. I'm just on the go, but someone should take a closer look at the user please. -] (<small>]•]•]</small>) 02:42, 28 January 2022 (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).
== ] Adding Potentially Libelous Content | Reported by ] (Result: Reporter indefinitely blocked ) ==


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.
Adding libelous content on the following pages. Showing agenda on destroying reputation of such personalities/entities. This is strictly against ] which clearly state that adding information on pages that defame any person or entity is not allowed. It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Misplaced Pages is not defamatory.


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 ].
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Apollo Quiboloy}}


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Kingdom of Jesus Christ (church)}}


] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' ]
*KingdomScribe101 indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 03:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC) *Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 6895}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Andrewgprout}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}


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


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' #'''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:'''

'''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:'''


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

* This user continuously asks me to follow ] for my "disruptive" edits lately, yet when I ask on the talk page, he doesn't reply. It seems that he himself is being disruptive by ignoring consensus per ]. ] (]) 04:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:30, 10 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Vandalism

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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


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

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

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

    I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--BubbleBabis (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating hoaxes, adding off-topic information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368#User BubbleBabis. Aneirinn (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

    User:Shecose reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: Page move-protected)

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268346390 by CNMall41 (talk) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
    2. 08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268345471 by CNMall41 (talk) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
    3. 08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268344773 by CNMall41 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

    • I am going to advise that we delay any action here until Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shecose is resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      That is because CNMall41's only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this is block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Shecose, to satisfy his personal ego (above and in Special:Diff/1268349248 too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. Shecose (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Page: Korean clans of foreign origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ger2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:00 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
    2. 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."
    3. 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."
    4. 04:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
    5. 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:

    1. 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."
    2. 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: Reply"

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 04:36 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: New Section"
    2. 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)

    User:Theonewithreason reported by User:PhilipPirrip (Result: )

    Page: Novak Djokovic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Theonewithreason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:


    1. 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:

    I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? PhilipPirrip (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Categories: