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 09:11, 12 April 2008 editVision Thing (talk \| contribs)7,574 edits →User:J.R._Hercules reported by User:Vision_Thing (Result: )← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,714 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	{{moveprotected\|small=yes}}
			<!--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}}
	</noinclude>
	]
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 70		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~72h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
	=Violations=
	:Please place ] {{highlight\|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can for it.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	<!--
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	-->

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*] violation on
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	{{Article\|Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV\|Scjessey}}: Time reported: 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

	''Diffs ~~are~~ ~~listed~~ ~~from~~ ~~oldest~~ to ~~newest, dates are in UTC~~''		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

	# <small>(edit summary: "Repair article after break from consensus - see discussion(s) on talk page")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ - rm details that aren't directly linked to Obama, and are therefore not relevant to his BLP. Wright details should be in ]")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 204090834 by ] (]) - rv due to lack of a reliable source and POV language")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "er... I don't think so did. Your own website is hardly a reliable source, is it?")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 204199396 by ] (]) - rv per ]")</small>

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
	*Previous report:

	Result of previously reported 3RR violation was accepted offer of self-block for 24 hours. I noted another 3RR violation and was told "I don't monitor my contributions to make sure I don't violate 3RR. I just do what I think needs to be done."(see grey text above diff ]). Message that 3RR is absolute upper limit needs reinforcing, I think. Maybe another warning from an admin will do the trick. Up to you. ] (]) 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
	:As I see it, Scjessey is enforcing the ] policy by removing unsourced or poorly-sourced statements about a living person. Enforcing of BLP is specifically exempt from 3RR: see ]. Next time you do a 3RR report, remember to include the previous version reverted to. It's also useful to include in your brief description of the event a brief comment about the nature of the material being added or removed. (non-admin opinion) --] (]) 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
	:I see only one of the five reverts that might qualify for the BLP exemption (the "I don't think so did" one). That leaves 4. The material differs, but I've already described what's going on in the previous notification. I don't have time to do more, before I got to go to sleep or now when I have to go to work. But 3RR is a violation of a community standard. It is not my job to act as prosecutor when supplying notice of such a violation. ] (]) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
	::This one also looks like a BLP revert to me: ''"rv due to lack of a reliable source and POV language)"'' (at 00:21). Just my opinion. Anyway, the user hasn't edited the page since 12:36 8 April (UTC). Blocks are ], but only to prevent problems and there doesn't seem to be a problem right at the moment. I think enough time has passed that if the user were to revert again now, that would not be a 3RR violation even if the previous reverts were a violation (which I think they weren't due to BLP exemption; I haven't even checked whether they were all reverts, since no previous version reverted to was given.) --] (]) 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::The BLP exception reads as follows: "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons". The revert that you would characterize as a "BLP revert" removed a report that the ''Washington Times'' claimed to have found inconsistencies between Obama's political positions during his Senate and Presidential campaigns. It is not remotely "clearly libelous", and it is well cited, to a ''Times'' article. Scjessey's edit comment identifies it as a revert, and in any case examining the text as of the first revert I list shows that none of the material he is removing in the later reverts was present at that time, so that there is no question that his removals were reverts. Would think you could have figured that out for yourself, if you were of a mind to. ] (]) 12:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think it is pretty obvious to anyone that this is not a case of edit warring. The edits took place over two days (although yes, they were within a 24-hour period) and for different reasons and editors. The reporting editor is probably retaliating to a pair of 3RR warnings I placed on his own talk page recently. In violation of ], the reporting editor has not even ''warned'' me for a possible 3RR violation before reporting me, as can be seen from the misleading warning links listed above (the listed warning is a threat given on an article talk page last month). I expect this 3RR notice to be rejected out of hand, and the reporting editor to be warned for attempting to game the system to suit his own ends instead. -- ] (]) 01:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	:::::] "An editor '''must not''' perform more than three ], ''in whole or in part'', on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." What part of '''must not''' are you not getting? You have been warned. You were reported. You accepted a voluntary penalty. You did it again. I warned you but did not report you. You did it again. I reported you. An administrator who advanced bogus arguments on your behalf let you off again, without so much as a warning. But you ''did'' violate 3RR, and you have this second report of your third instance (that I know of) on your record. Don't count on being so lucky again. ] (]) 13:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	::::Looks to be a content dispute to me, and the claim that BLP violations are being reverted would take a lot of study to prove. Under these conditions I think both editors should carefully follow the 3RR limit. Since in the on 17 March, Scjessey promised an administrator on this board that he would be more careful in the future, I think his actions should get more serious scrutiny now. An editor is only entitled to get a 3RR warning once, and Scjessey got one last time around. When taking any action, the closing admin should note that Andyvphil has two previous blocks for edit warring. ] (]) 01:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Don't follow your first sentence at all. Of course it's a content dispute. How does that exempt Scjessey from 3RR? And, disposing of the bogus BLP claim wouldn't take much "study". Just look at the diffs. That's why I supplied them. The BLP exemption specifies "clearly". No "clearly libelous" material material will be found, or any libelous material at all, and only one (previously noted) probable poor citation. Then ask Scjessey to identify what ''he'' alleges to be ''clearly libelous'' or ''poorly cited''. Then examine the poverty of his reply. Further note that in neither case had ''I'' actually violated 3RR. See my talk page for details. But now Scjessey has violated 3RR three times, been reported twice and has no blocks. Interesting. ] (]) 13:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::In Scjessey's defense, this article has come under attack from editors who seek nothing more than to turn this BLP into something it shouldn't be, and the users who he reverted have a history of unilaterally inserting negative (and oftentimes irrelevant) material into the article (that goes against consensus and almost always ends up getting reverted by someone else anyway). In addition, this article gets profoundly more edits in a given day than the vast majority of articles on wikipedia, so I could see 4 edits of it not being particularly shocking. Also consider that while 4 reverts is said to break the rules, there seems to be no limit on how many times a user can insert new negative material into an article against the consensus of other editors, and there are most definitely editors who have attempted to do this at least 4 times in a day without being warned or punished for it (and indeed this is a conflict for which people who want to keep this BLP legitimate and respectful will lose). I encourage you to consider these things in coming to a judgment/decision as well as note that Scjessey has been a kind and respectful editor who has worked hard to improve this article and keep it from being hijacked by users with a vested interest. --] (]) 02:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	::::::::No, 4 reverts is not "said" to break the rules. 4 reverts ''does'' break the rules, and you do not get an exemption for removing "negative" material. Only "clearly libelous" and "poorly cited" and the other specified exemptions. No matter how badly your finger itches to hit the "undo" button, if you've done three reverts already you need to leave it to someone else, even if admin Stifle doesn't want to say so. ] (]) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	::::::also this 3rr report comes from a user who has been the '''subject''' and '''object''' of numerous admin actions and efforts. the term wikilawyer comes to my mind. user:Andyvphil has not yet posted on the talk section where 3 editors worked to solve a text problem, and because he disagrees with the solution, he vindictively does a 3rr report. Its also not the first time he has ignored BLP policy in making 3rr reports, ihe reported me in similar circumstances, and the admin's agreed with my BLP argument. Also check those Diffs very carefully, he padded my 3rr report with seperate edits to give it a greater appearance than was actually there. He seems to advocate use of the "3 edits of page text" view of 3rr and not the seemingly more common "3 edits on disputed text" which is what i am used to. And he only does this selectively, so its not like editors have a regular ability to see what his standards are, which is important on such a fast moving page.
	::::::And the idea the Scjessey engages in "edit warfare" is ridiculous to anyone who looks at the page regularly (except apparently the reporting user apparently)... ] (]) 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::You were blocked. The admin who blocked you explained why your BLP claim was bogus and refused to unblock you. Another admin then lifted your block, an action he declined to defend when challenged to do so. If your conclusion from that experience was that your exceeding 3RR was justified and I was in the wrong to report you (or "childish", as Scjessey would have it)... well the actions of Jayron32 and Stifle might lead you to that error, but that doesn't reflect well on them. ] (]) 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*{{AN3\|d}} No previous version was indicated so it is not at all clear that these are reverts. Furthermore, numbers 3 and 5 (at least) are exempt under ]. ] (]) 08:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
			# (31 December 2024)
	:Unbelievable. In what way is #5 a BLP-exempt edit? The text removed is as follows:
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	''In the wake of the Wright controversy, the '']'' has reported that support for Obama has softened among Democratic voters at a critical moment in the primary process:<blockquote>Senator Barack Obama’s support among Democrats nationally has softened over the last month, particularly among men and upper-income voters, as voters have taken a slightly less positive view of him ... Mr. Obama’s favorability rating among Democratic primary voters has dropped seven percentage points, to 62 percent, since the last Times/CBS News survey, in late February. While that figure is by any measure high, the decline came in a month during which he endured withering attacks from Mrs. Clinton and responded to reports that his former pastor had made politically inflammatory statements from his church’s pulpit in Chicago. ... Of those respondents who said they had heard about the controversy involving Mr. Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., 36 percent of the general electorate said it made them look less favorably on Mr. Obama.<ref>{{cite news \|title=Obama’s Support Softens in Poll, Suggesting a Peak Has Passed \|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/us/politics/04campaign.html?_r=1&oref=slogin \|publisher=The New York Times \|date=2008-04-04 \|accessdate=2008-04-08}}</ref></blockquote>''

	:Again, it is not remotely libelous, and largely consists of a quote from a RS (the ''NY Times'') which is properly cited. The edit comment again self-identifies the revert as a revert, and, again, the first dif does show a prior text not containing any of the material Scjessey later removes, making clear that his removals are reverts. ] (]) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	*My mistake, I meant 3 and 4. Also #1 is not clearly a revert. Can you please indicate which exact previous version that the article matches after edit #1? ] (]) 13:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	::No.3 is no more a BLP-exempt revert than #5. It's the citation of the ''Washington Times'' that I reply to Coppertwig about above. Not libelous, and well-cited.
	::Thast there should be any difficulty seeing that #1 is a revert is a little hard to understand, but this diff shows that what Scjessey did was undo the three immediately preceeding edits. ] (]) 14:47, 9 April 2008 (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 />
	:::I'd like to point out that this stems from an ongoing content dispute (see ]) that resulted in me giving ] a polite 3RR warning. He is trying to use this procedure as some sort of "retaliatory strike" to get me temporarily blocked by lumping together a collection of largely unrelated edits that took place over 2 days. Meanwhile, over 24 hours have passed since the last listed reversion, rendering this report rather "stale" in any case. Please don't let Andy's personal dislike of me interfere with my normal functioning as a diligent, active Wikipedian. -- ] (]) 13:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Actually, I didn't ask that you be blocked. I asked that you be warned in much stronger terms than you had before. "Maybe another warning from an admin will do the trick." Not that you didn't deserve to be blocked. ] (]) 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	*Please see the section at the top of this page entitled "what the three-revert rule does not cover". Please continue discussion elsewhere as this page is not for discussion. ] (]) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	*I have, for the record, warned Scjessey. ] (]) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Then shouldn't the result in the header be changed from "no action" to "warning"? ] (]) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	:...though, for the record, calling a "warning" is stretching the word beyond recognition. ] (]) 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected) ==
			: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 one week) ==
	*] violation on {{Article\|State terrorism and the United States}}. {{3RRV\|76.102.72.153}}: Time reported: 04:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
	*2nd revert:
			# {{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"
	*3rd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1267995715\|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	*4th revert:
			# {{diff2\|1267994453\|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"

	Continuing the edit war {{Article\|State terrorism and the United States}} that started earlier today. ] (]) 04:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Agree. Massive edit warring by IP single purpose accounts during the last few hours. Previous IP reverter blocked for 3RR after nine reverts. This is an obvious sock/meatpuppet who continue with exactly the same revert. Semi-protection needed.] (]) 07:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I don't think this IP editor is related to the previous one. This one has a history of productive, good edits to the article, and doing an IP trace, appear to be from different areas. So lets not make negative associations. This user appears to have accidently gone over 3RR for the first time--but other users should be be doing 3 reverts either--esp. for trying to force making massive against consensus. I think the IP user should self revert in principal, and then another editor such as myself can revert for him. No one should edit war much less go over 3R, even if they are acting correctly otherwise.] (]) 07:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	*{{RFPP\|s}} by Jmlk17. Full protection will follow close behind if this edit warring continues. ] (]) 08:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	*And duly protected by William M. Connolley (I'm surprised I haven't seen him around here lately, he used to do a lot of 3RR work). ] (]) 08:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hrs) ==
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	*] violation on {{Article\|Sonic the Hedgehog (character)}}. {{3RRV\|24.193.80.215}}: Time reported: 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			#
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*Diff of 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)
	User:24.193.80.215 returns to article Sonic the Hedgehog (character) often to change a date from "present" to "2008", has reverted 5 times between 15:28, 8 April 2008 and 13:56, 9 April 2008, see user's contributions ]. (Edit: I have a -4:00 time difference from UTC put into my Preferences if that matters with the edit times) ] (]) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|blocked\|24 hours}} - ] <small>]</small> 20:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

			:That sounds good to me. I’m guessing he will get reverted anyway. If he reverts again, I’ll mention it here. ] (]) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~24hrs~~ ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	*] violation on {{Article\|Luscious Lopez}}. {{3RRV\|Wikkibobby}}: Time reported: 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268186285\|diff=1268208200\|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			## {{diff2\|1268186883\|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268202556\|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268202677\|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268203165\|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204621\|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204745\|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204943\|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268205104\|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268208200\|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268160425\|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
	*2nd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268160707\|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			# {{diff2\|1268160586\|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Wikkibobby is a ] who has been involved in an edit war on the Luscious Lopez article for the past two days. His suspected ip was also warned for 3RR on by an admin. Wikkibobby has reverted an administrator many times during this edit war. He has behaved in an uncivil manner in the edit summaries. ] (]) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|~~blocked~~\|24 hours}} ] ~~<small>~~]~~</small>~~ 20:30, 9 ~~April~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	*] violation on {{Article\|Almeda University}}. {{3RRV\|Wikiuserc}}: Time reported: 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}

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

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			#

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	While the reverts are not to the exact same versions, they do share similarities, and the intent is quite clear. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
	:'''Comment:''' I give previous versions reverted to for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th reverts below. I haven't confirmed whether the first one is a revert or not.
	:*The 2nd revert (at 23:59) deletes the word "'''Yet'''" (and replaces it with "'''Still'''"); the word "Yet" had just been added in the previous edit. (Previous version precisely reverted to: .)
	:*The 3rd revert (at 00:05) replaces "'''bought'''" with "'''used'''" in a sentence about Naples police officers. Previous version reverted to: (A very short version with almost all content deleted, immediately reverted back to the longer version by Cluebot; doesn't contain the sentence about Naples police, therefore doesn't contain the word "bought".)
	:*The 4th revert replaces the same word "'''bought'''" with "'''acquired'''"; since it's deleting "bought" which had just been restored in the previous edit, it's a revert. (Previous version reverted to: ; not reverting to precisely the same, but reverting to a version not containing the word "bought" in the sentence about Naples police.)
	:(non-admin opinion) --] (]) 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
	*Revert #1 does not bring the article to the same version as the previous version reverted to. If it did, would show no change. Revert #2 is valid. Revert #3 does not appear to be a revert. Revert #4 seems valid.
	*As such, {{AN3\|nve}} However, {{AN3\|pe}}. ] (]) 08:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*] violation on {{Article\|Charlotte, North Carolina}}. {{3RRV\|208.104.238.191}}: Time reported: 12:42, 10 April 2008 (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.
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

			There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:

			:]
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			:"""
			:] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-delete3 --> ] (]) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ] (]) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: They're up to it again ] (]) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:""" ] (]) 01:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			: NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ] (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. ] (]) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	User repeatedly changes population estimates to those of a source agreed on the talk page to be unacceptable. User has been told to resolve the matter on the talk page and not to revert without consensus.] (]) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
			::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
	:'''No violation''' (non-admin opinion). You've listed only three reverts, and they span more than 24 hours. To violate 3RR, there have to be four reverts, and they must all be within one 24-hour period. However, I encourage discussion on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting. --<font color="#BB7730" size="6pt">☺</font>] (]) 12:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
			::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
	:I'll rubber-stamp that. {{AN3\|nve}} ] (]) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
			::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~~, 36 hours for 3RR~~ ~~and~~ ~~vandalism~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	*] violation on {{Article\|Scotland}}. {{3RRV\|20.133.0.13 }}: Time reported: 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	*Previous version reverted to:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			# {{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:'''
	A problematic ip user. Wishing to spoil the hard work taking place at ]. Hasn't commented at the talk page to get a consensus, just has anti-UK, English and some racist sentiments (see , , ). I'd really urge a short block rather than semi-protect, please. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] \| ] </span></small> 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
	:Blocked for 36 hours for edit warring and petty vandalism. ] (]) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*] violation on {{Article\|Scotland}}. {{3RRV\|20.133.0.13}}: Time reported: 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

			:'''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)
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			: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)
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
			: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) ==
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	This user reverted a fourth time despite recieving a warning after the third. ] (]\|]\|]) 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:See above. ] (]) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268310745\|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
			# {{diff2\|1268310470\|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268310062\|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268308804\|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
			# {{diff2\|1268308036\|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"

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


	== Douglass Feith (malformed) ==
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

	As dictated in the BLP rules: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	I have repeatedly removed the anonymous slander attributed to Condoleeza Rice, which originates from a partisan newsletter and quotes and anonymous source. It is replaced as soon as I remove it. The Colin Powell attack on Feith is strenously denied by Powell, who maintains the exact opposite. In fact, the entire page is a laundry list of negative quotes and vulgar references mined from any source possible. Very few of them have scholarly nor informational content that is valid and pertinent to the bio of public servant Douglas Feith: instead, the page is a collection of partisan smears, thinly sources rumors and vulgar name-calling and epithets, many anti-semitic and Nazi references (accusing him of being Gestapo-like). The "praise" section, half the size of the "criticism" section is apparently a sop to allow griefers to post any criticisms, no matter how scurrilous, with the excuse that there is a "praise" section to balance it. Both are unencyclopedic, sloppy and without real informational value. Attempts to clean up the page result in reverts and even moderators refuse to abide by BLP rules, especially on the Rice quote. Other quotes seem to be included merely because they belittle Feith in extremely vulgar terms. Finding a quote calling him the "dumbest m----f---- on the planet" may be very amusing, but its not informational and its slanderous and unserious. I would like to see the entire "praise" and "criticism" sections made more encyclopedic and held to standards, but partisans refuse to allow any changes, despite mine and others complaints about the standards of the pages (see Bueller's arguments on the talk page). <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:{{AN3\|mr}} ] (]) 19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
	::'''Comment:''' This seems to be about the article {{Article\|Douglas J. Feith}}, which has been semi-protected at 16:25 10 April (UTC) and has had only two edits since then. <font color="#BB7730" size="6pt">☺</font>] (]) 23:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
	*] violation on {{Article\|HP (disambiguation)}}. {{3RRV\|Abtract}}: Time reported: 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268346980\|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
	*2nd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268346280\|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
	*3rd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268345229\|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:

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

	Abtract is aware that there is a discussion on ] but is blatantly ignoring it. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:The report is inaccurate; diffs 1,2 and 3 are not reverts. Hence no violation, hence no action. I will, however, look at the possibility of page protection if other users continue the edit warring. ] (]) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

	::You're saying subsequent changes are not reverts? In any event, , , , , look like reverts. I would like to hear more opinions. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::] is one of the editors who has reverted ], and he is administrator. Since admins are supposed to know how to calm the troubled waters, I invited him to join this discussion. There seem to be some fairly intellectual issues about policy being discussed, but I don't see people waiting to reach a Talk consensus before making their edits. A slight excess of BOLD and REVERT, and not enough DISCUSS. ] (]) 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	I'd support a block on ], who looks to be the instigator in the edit warring. ]] 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
	:As well, I would support a block, as per Sesshomaru, Ed and Scarian. He was pointedly asked to discuss his edit and await the conclusion of discussion, as the edit was a new one and linked to discussions both in the WP (dab) and Harry Potter articles. None of what we do works if there is a pointed unwillingness to discuss. - ] ] 20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Abtract only reverted three times and made no reverts after he was warned to cease or be blocked. I would not support any block of a user who ceases to edit war after being instructed to do so. Such a block would be entirely retributive. As such I would be disinclined to change my original close of this as "no violation" and I would not support a block on this user for his edits to ]. ] (]) 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Concur with that. {{AN3\|novio}} ] (]) 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thank you ... but I will heed the need to discuss more. ] (]) 21:54, 10 April 2008 (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: 24 hours ) ==
			*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:That is because {{u\|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			:{{u\|Shecose}}, {{tqq\|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*] violation on {{Article\|Fortune Global 500}}. {{3RRV\|Signsolid}}: Time reported: 21:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			# "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)"

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

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*Diff of 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:'''
	While the last diff is slightly different, the same sourced texted is removed and changed in each of the four reverts. The user has a long history of edit warring and of attacking other users, I recently started a discussion on him . He has removed the 3RR warning and clearly assumes ownership of the article . ] (]) 21:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	:'''Result''' - I have blocked ] for 24 hours. Please use discussion on the articles talk page from now on. ]] 21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
			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.
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			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).
	*] violation on {{Article\|Circumcision}}. {{3RRV\|Garycompugeek}}: Time reported: 22:09, 10 April 2008 (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.
	*Previous version reverted to: (by Garycompugeek) for the first 3 reverts.
	(by Garycompugeek) for the 4th.

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

	~~His knowledge~~ of ~~the~~ ~~rule~~ is ~~shown~~ by ~~his~~ ~~issuing this warning~~ to ~~me.~~		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	His first 3 reverts added an anti-circumcision link which had been originally added by him. In 2 more edits he removed a medical summary in retaliation. He said in the talk-page warning I cited above that he wants to respect consensus but he's not acting like it. ] (]) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Self-reverted:''' Garycompugeek has , nullifying the 4th revert, after a discussion with Jakew on ]. (opinion by involved user) <font color="#BB7730" size="4pt">☺</font>] (]) 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|HP (disambiguation)}}. {{3RRV\|User:JHunterJ}}: Time reported: 04:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning: the user is an admin and is (or should be) well aware of 3RR

	User:JHunterJ has been endeavoring to add HP as a dab term for Harry Potter for months, and not finding consensus for inclusion in either the HP dab page or Harry Potter, has taken to edit-warring in both articles over this and formatting. The 3RR vio is in the dab page. Note that this complaint is ''not'' being submitted to address the content issue but rather the stability of the article caused by JHunterJ fighting everyone for inclusion. - ] ] 04:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

	:'''Result''' - Blocked for 24 hours. ]] 07:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hour block ) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Susie Castillo}}. {{3RRV\|PageantUpdater}}: Time reported: 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	Dispute over whether to use a low-resolution, poor quality head shot in the lead, versus a high quality, high-resolution full-body shot in the lead. Despite 3RR warning and attempts to engage User, continually reverts to have low quality in lead. Per ], highest quality should go in lead. <font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Blocked for 24 hours and also warned David. ]] 15:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


	== ] reported by ] (Result: both blocked 24 hours) ==

	*] violation on {{Abdullah II of Jordan}}. {{3RRV\|Grandia01}}: Time reported: 1:19 pm

	*Previous version re-reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->


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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	A short explanation of the incident. topic was open for discussion for a lengthy time, i was given permission to take out the argued part after i provide good sources and discussion, the discussion went on for a week or so, then i brought the source, a report made by the DIA of the DoD. Grandia01 will not discuss and will not read the source and will just keep on re-editing. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

	:Both users were already warned by me; both now blocked for 24 hours. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Opposition to trade unions}}. {{3RRV\|J.R._Hercules}}: Time reported: 19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	He keeps singling out Hitler as one opposed to trade unions and thus possibly trying to sneak in ]. ] ] 19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

	:I've posted a message at J.R. Hercules' talk page informing the user of the 3RR rule and of this report, and inviting the user to self-revert. The user has not edited for over 24 hours. <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 23:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

	:J.R. Hercules has been editing Misplaced Pages for two and a half years so I believe that he is acquainted with the 3RR. Also, he was after Coppertwig left him a message at his but he refused to make self-revert, which indicates that he believes that revert warring is a legitimate way of resolving disputes. Other user tried to discuss this issue on article talk page, but except comment in which he accused him of having political agenda and being intellectual dishonest, Hercules failed to provide any explanation for his reverts. ] ] 09:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Balochistan Liberation Army}}. {{3RRV\|Karojaro}}: Time reported: 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	User is continuously adding npov content and links to a large number of videos in the text, seems to be spaming or advertising for the ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
	:C.Fred has blocked Karojaro for 24 hours beginning 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) for edit warring. <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 23:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|F-Zero Z}}. {{3RRV\|Zero705}}: Time reported: 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: (restored at 16:07) <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	*All reverts:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	Repeatedly removes {{tl\|hoax}} tag from article, despite it being confirmed in an outside source. ''']]''' <sup>]</sup> 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Tony Fox has blocked Zero705 for 24 hours beginning 21:14 11 April 2008 (UTC), for edit warring. <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Absolut Vodka}}. {{3RRV\|The rabbit in the suitcase}}: Time reported: 01:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	User The rabbit in the suitcase is determined to make the Absout Vodka page about blogger Michelle Malkin. He is determined to revert as many times as he wishes to "own" the page. People have attempted to reach consensus with him, but he does not reciprocate. ] (]) 01:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
	:<s>'''Apparently no violation'''. (non-admin opinion). I see only three reverts. It takes four reverts in a 24-hour period to violate 3RR. </s> The two edits at 02:07 and 02:11 are consecutive, so they count as one edit. That edit added "'''led by'''", apparently for the first time,<s> so it was apparently not a revert. </s> The following three also added "led by", so they are reverts. <s> No proper "previous version reverted to" has been supplied.</s> Dates as well as times should be stated. Urzatron's account has only 24 edits. <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC) <small>I struck out some of my words. <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)</small>

	::The "previous version reverted to" isn't done correctly? My mistake.] (]) 01:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

	::I've attempted to rectify by changing the "previous version reverted to." The words aren't exactly the same, but you'll see the intent is to make the entry "led by Michelle Malkin" or "bloggers connected with Michelle Malkin began" ... to revert this meaning repeatedly.] (]) 02:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

	::I also neglected to realize that two of the user's edits were back-to-back; therefore I've removed one of the claimed "reverts" from this log, as you're obviously correct -- two edits back-to-back certainly aren't two reverts. Your advice is appreciated. :) ] (]) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::I see your point now. The version of 13:45 10 April 2008, although it did not contain the words "led by", contained essentially the same or a very similar idea, "'''bloggers connected with Mexican immigration critic Michelle Malkin'''". This idea of M. Malkin being central to or connected with all of the bloggers mentioned was softened and removed in the two subsequent edits: "'''Various bloggers, including those connected with ... ],'''" (Ulzatron, ; then "'''Various ... bloggers, including ... ]'''", by Orangemike at , completely eliminating the idea that the bloggers were "connected" with M. Malkin. Therefore, logically, if not literally, inserting "led by" is a revert, and if this argument is accepted then there are four reverts within 24 hours.
	:::I've added dates to the above report.
	::: is The rabbit in the suitcase's response to the 3RR warning. <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Example ==

	<pre>
	<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV\|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

	<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
	</pre>

	== See also ==

	* ] or ]
	* – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

	]

Latest revision as of 20:24, 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: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)

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)

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: Page move-protected)

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)

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)

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: