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 17:40, 20 May 2008 editLulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users21,790 edits User:Kossack4Truth reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result: )← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,733 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}}		\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 72		\|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 violation) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*] violation on ]. {{3RRV\|Bluegoblin7}}: Time reported: 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			'''Diffs 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:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	:My reasons are all in my edit sumamries. I did mention a ]. I think this is nonsense, as the redirect itself has been csd'd. Also, as they are shortcuts, should they not be ''short''? The one that Trees Rock (or is it Save the humans or iwilleditu?!?! I'm confused.) added that I reverted was longer than all the current ones, and it is a little used shorcut - see ]. Thanks, '''<font face="Gill Sans MT">]]</font>''' 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
	::One WPP: Is a accepted shortcut. Second Your Shortcuts ] and ] are more uncommon. Third That comment you made about my username is uncalled for and is a ]. <font face="Arial Black"> ] <sup>]</sup></font> 21:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::Forth of all I Have Just noticed ] don't redirect to the wikiproject. <font face="Arial Black"> ] <sup>]</sup></font> 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::5th of all when did you mention ]. <font face="Arial Black"> ] <sup>]</sup></font> 21:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	:{{AN3\|nv}} It takes four reverts to violate 3RR. Neither editor has made more than three. ] (]) 21:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Wait I Found Another one. <font face="Arial Black"> ] <sup>]</sup></font> 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::{{AN3\|nv}} The first revert was on the 12th. 3RR violations occur in a 24-hour period. ] (]) 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Already blocked 24~~ ~~hours~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	*] violation on {{Article\|Mac OS X}}. {{3RRV\|Fdgdf3}}: Time reported: 10:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:		# (31 December 2024)
	*3rd revert:		# (6 January 2024)
	*4th revert:		# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

	*Diff of 3RR warning: (~~this~~ is ~~the first entry so there is no diff~~)		'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)

	I suspect that ] is a ] of ], who has previously been blocked twice for 3RR breaches and once for edit warring using his IP address in the past week. A ] has been requested at ]. --] (]) 10:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|ab}} 24 hours by ]. ] (]) 14:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
	::See also ]. The question remaining is whether the block on Fdgdf3 should be extended due to the apparent sockpuppetry. Knowhands is already blocked indefinitely after multiple 3RR violations. ] (]) 15:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result:24 hours) ==

			<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 />
	*] violation on {{Article\|Criticism of Bill O'Reilly}}. {{3RRV\|Commodore Sloat}}: Time reported: 19:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			: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) ==
	<!--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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	<!-- 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. -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning: User has been for 3RR violations.
	:Whilst not by the book a 3RR violation, CS was clearly gaming that by reverting 5 times in 25 hours. Therefore I've blocked him for 24 hours. ] 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Already blocked ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
			# {{diff2\|1268002110\|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
			# {{diff2\|1267995715\|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267994453\|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Supernatural (TV series)}}. {{3RRV\|71.234.162.94}}, {{3RRV\|Ophois}}: Time reported: 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* The reverts are over whether two characters are main or supporting. I think sockpuppetry may be involved, since different IPs are doing the same reversion. Btw, first time I've reported something here, so apologies if I've done anything incorrectly. --] (]) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
			#
	{{AN3\|ab}} Both editors complained about are already blocked. ] (]) 19:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Penis}}. {{3RRV\|Bobisbob}}: Time reported: 02:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			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)
	<!--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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			: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)
	<!-- 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. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of this article regarding this image. User Bobisbob is edit warring to replace the main image with one of what is described in the image description as his own erect penis. The discussion is around whether that image or one of a diagram is more appropriate at for this part of the article. The argument is NOT one of censorship, but rather which image is most appropriate for this article at this point. It may also be interesting to note that Bobisbob was in favour of a diagram before his own image was uploaded.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*'''No violation''' - reverts were outside of the 24 hour fence. --] (]) 05:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation here, blocked for 3RR on Philadelphia) ==
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268186285\|diff=1268208200\|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1268186883\|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268202556\|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268202677\|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{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:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Boston, Massachusetts}}. {{3RRV\|Kopter}}: Time reported: ] (]) 04:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268160425\|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1268160707\|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1268160586\|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
	<!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
	<!-- 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. -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*1st revert:
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	*This editor has reverted the same edit 4 times since 15 May, disregarding two editors' warnings and invitations for discussion. Repeatedly substitutes a drab photo of Boston at night for one we two deem more appealing and appropriate. Not 3 reversions in 24 hours, but definitely a pattern of non-cooperation and disruption that is very frustrating, and degrades the article. Similar pattern of behavior observed on other articles. Would appreciate your help! ] (]) 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}
	*'''No violation''' here, but I'm blocking for 3RR on ]. --] (]) 05:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Carefree (chant)}}. {{3RRV\|The_C_of_E}}: Time reported: 07:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			#

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!--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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's 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. -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			I edited ] and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following ]. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	] created a "parody" section in the ] entry. The section contains no notable material and gives ground for potential edit and flame wars. It is typical of soccer fans to vandalize and abuse entries in Misplaced Pages. Allowing "parodies" and similar defamatory or insulting material to enter unchecked into wiki entries only invites trouble - and deterioration of quality. User has been warned and asked to participate in the Discussion, which I started in the entry's Talk page, but to no avail. -] (]) 07:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} Edit warring on ] though no 3RR in any 24-hour period. Unwilling to discuss his changes on the article Talk. Eight reverts to his preferred version altogether. His version lacks sources, its authenticity can't be confirmed, and no other editor supports it. ] (]) 13:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

			There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked for 48 hours) ==

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	*] violation on {{Article\|Supernatural (TV series)}}. {{3RRV\|Ophois}}: Time reported: 09:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

			: NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ] (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. ] (]) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*1st revert:
			::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
	*2nd revert:
			::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
	*3rd revert:
			::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
	*4th revert:
			::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
	*5th revert:
			::Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
	*6th revert:
			::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
	*7th revert:
			::Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
	*8th revert:
			::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
			::I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
			::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
			::3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with ] (]) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|nv}}. This report is a mess. ] (]) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment ] (]) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{re\|NotQualified}} Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--] (]) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. ] (]) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
			*::::# I add templates to an article with faults
			*::::# The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
			*::::# I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
			*::::# They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
			*::::# I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
			*::::# Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
			*::::# I notify the user
			*::::# I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
			*::::# Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
			*::::# You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
			*::::I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
			*:::::That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
			*:::::I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
			*:::::I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. ] (]) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	*'''Notes:''' - ] has already been blocked for 3RR over this, for 24 hours from 00:12, 18 May 2008, by ], who carried out one of the other reverts in the same edit war, see . Note left for C.Fred (where it should be noted that Ophois left at 22:43, 17 May 2008). It might also be worth looking at these two diffs by ]: and . Talk page discussion (since December 2007) is ] (, as of 23:27, 17 May 2008). There was also a previous edit war in January 2008. See the for the latest edit war. The edit war from 17-18 May 2008 can be seen . Note that I became aware of this when reviewing ], and left the following note , indicating that I was filing a report here. I wrote the report, warned ], then saved the report. ] (]) 09:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	*Blocked for 48 hours. - ] 14:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Already blocked indef as a sock ) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Mac OS X}}. {{3RRV\|Kjngjkn}}: Time reported: ] (]) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
			# {{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:'''
	*Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			:'''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)
	I suspect that ] is a ] of ], who has blocked indefinitely for multiple 3RR breaches and blocked once for edit warring using his IP address in the past week. A ] has been requested at ] and the SSP report is at ]. --] (]) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	'''Update:''' User has now been blocked as a sockpuppet so I'm not sure whether I should self-revert this report or leave the report for historical purposes. Notification that the user has been blocked seems the least I should do. --] (]) 13:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
			:And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. ] (]) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. ] (]) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. ] (]) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at ], not one as you claim. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. ] (]) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article ']' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
	:{{AN3\|ab}} Indef by ] as a sock. ] (]) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Already semi-protected) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	*] violation on {{Article\|Hattians}}. {{3RRV\|Til Eulenspiegel}}: Time reported: 15:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268310745\|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
	*2nd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268310470\|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	*3rd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268310062\|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	*4th revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268308804\|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
	*5th revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268308036\|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	This user is reverting constructive edits and writing inappropriate edit summaries. (Presumably his "issue" with the editing is the removal of a sentence that the ] is related to a Caucasian language group, which his source does not assert - see the article's ).


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

	::Note: the reporting anon is a sockpuppet for a banned user (]) who is not supposed to be editing at all, my reverting of him/her has nothing to do with the content, but is based on policy. ] (]) 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	:::Can you demonstrate this claim with evidence? If so, you should have filed a SSP report. - ] 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::No problem, will do; it's obvious from the editing history anyway, (numerous addition of portals to the top of pages rather than at the bottom or on talkpage, etc.) not to mention the WHOIS location matches... ] (]) 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
	:::::The location match is a university, where several of us have worked on these pages. Til Eulenspiegel's choice of what to reverse is based on content. ] (]) 22:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::'''Already semi-protected.''' ] has already semi-protected the article to stop the IP. Peter makes reference to a sock in his . It is plausible that another editor reverting ], {{user\|144.92.95.110}} is a sock of Sumerophile. I suggest that Til Eulenspiegel open up a ] report. ] (]) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	::::The amount of procedure needed to do SSP is too inhibiting to make it worth my time. In aspiring to be magnanimous, I probably wouldn't have even pointed the socks out at all, if they weren't actually trying to get me on this page. After that, I did reopen ]; as you can see, doing this only brought out yet more socks protesting that they are really just a group of people at the same location, who all just happen to edit in exactly the same way. I don't have the time, energy or patience to tackle this at SSP right now but if someone else wants to, please do. ] (]) 14:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: User warned again ) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Wii Fit}}. {{3RRV\|Duhman0009}}: Time reported: 17:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!--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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
	:(modifying article to express, "The game is scheduled for release May 21, 2008 in North America.")

	<!-- 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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	:{{AN3\|w}} It's been about 6 hours since the last revert, so I don't feel that blocking is necessary right now. I've left the user . Hopefully he refrains. - ] (]) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (Result:No action taken ) ==

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*] violation on {{Article\|User:GDD1000/UDR}}. {{3RRV\|BigDunc}}: Time reported: 19:51, 18 May 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)
	I don't really know how to fill this in, I'm just struggling with trying to cope with the vandalism this user BigDunc is doing at my sand box. He's deleting images which I've asked for assistance on because I don't know how to fill in the copyright syntax properly. I need help.] (]) 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
			*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)
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	<!--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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}
	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:
	*2nd revert:		# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
			# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
	*3rd revert:
			# "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."
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:		# "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)"
	*6th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	: I am enforcing copyright policy with regard to Fair use images in userspace. I have asked him several times not to restore the images per ] and he's just kept on edit warring. My edits are exempt from 3RR. - ]
			#: "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:'''
	::It should be noted that Dunc has been warned about civility ] (]) 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	You are ignoring the fact that I have already asked for assistance on the copyright page. I don't know how to do the syntax and have made errors. You are also conveniently (it would appear) forgetting to tell admins that you are locked into a long and bitter edit war against me at ] since the day I joined Misplaced Pages as a member.] (]) 20:05, 18 May 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.
	:As an admin, I decided to take no action with this. I cautioned both parties on the ANI. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

			In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
	{{hat\|reason=Boxed up lengthy discussion. ] (]) 00:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)}}
	What is the ANI? Is this editor going to be continually allowed to cause me grief this way?] (]) 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
	:GDD1000, there is a set of rules as to where Fair Use images can be used in the encyclopedia. Logos, such as this regimental logo, are usually Fair Use images and are not freely-licensed. We are not supposed to have any Fair Use images in user space. Your sandbox is in your user space. To satisfy the most exact interpretation of policy, it has been suggested that the image reference in your draft article be kept enclosed in comment brackets (or preceded by a colon) until the page is moved to main space. That should not inconvenience you very much, and it will save another 10,000 words of policy discussion. By 'ANI' they are referring to ]. ] (]) 20:36, 18 May 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.
	I've said all along that I don't understand the copyright tagging. I feel there was a better way of doing this but when I'm under attack I can only ask for help and hope that I get it. ] (]) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
	:We have already ruled that there is no 3RR violation. If you have further concerns, express them at ]. You've already participated in three different threads there: ], ] and ]. Beware of ]. If you know about Arbcom you can't be quite as naive as you appear. ] (]) 21:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

			End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think ] might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within after being inactive since based off their ].
	I know about ArbCom because I've come across it and understand how it works. There are still some things I don't understand. I am not trying to be naive and I hate the lack of knowledge I have because it seems to disadvantage me at every turn with this horrible edit war which has been going on since the 1st day I joined this site. I am not however, a fool! Both you and I would be incredibly naive to think that someone who's only been posting here for a matter of weeks will have got his (or her) head around the plethora of complicated procdures which seem to make this site tick. No disrespect intended.] (]) 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	BTW, I've never heard of "forum shopping". I'm just doing my best to contribute to articles. I didn't ask for all this nonsense.] (]) 21:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:It's when an editor goes around the project like and and when you have made reports on ANI a number of times and then claim not to know what it is. So, claiming ignorance and "forum shopping" for support when you know full well what our policies are, can only last so long. So it's a bit like when editors provide you with a policy like ] or ], and you don't like it, you go around the project looking to have them blocked. --] (]) 22:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

	Ok, so now I understand but you have to understand that I've felt backed into a corner. That's why I've sought help. If you took the time to discuss things like this with me all the time then we wouldn't be having these issues. Can we see this co-operation on the UDR page now please?] (]) 22:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	:But I have, a number of , and you just ignore the advice. I've explained the policies, and pointed you to them and you ignored them. Now you find your way around quite well when it suits you, so next time your here, or any other of the forums, ignorance will not be used as an excuse. --] (]) 22:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	Just a cotton pickin minute there. I have found my way round since day one. I've had to, otherwise you and your muckers would have run rings around me. Your problem was, and is, that you thought I just wanted to disrupt something for you. That was never my intention. If I gave that impression through inexperience then I apologise, as I have done before. Don't be thinking though that because I've been able to interpret SOME of the conventions on this site that I've become an expert overnight - I haven't. I'm just able to do some of the things I need to do. Now; as I've said to Dunc, you don't appear to be the slightest bit bothered about what I've done elsewhere. It's only the ] article which has got up your nose. May I suggest, now that you perhaps realise I am not the rabid bigot you may have mistaken me for initially, that you assist me in writing the article and then we can all move onto something else. Fair enough?] (]) 23:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Jim Bob Duggar}}. {{3RRV\|76.189.145.86}}: Time reported: 20:30, 18 May 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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- 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:

	I think this might be vandalism disguised as a valid edit (ie using an apparent source) but the source does not say what it should. Anyway, fairly new and hope this is right and helpful procedure. ] (]) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result:stern warning, block possible later) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Time travel}}. {{3RRV\|Shawncorey}}: Time reported: 22:50, 18 May 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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- 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 (On user page, where he responded):

	*5th revert:

	User repeatedly removes a cited paragraph, insisting simply that it is "wrong".

	User has also insisted on his talk page, "I'll keep removing it until it it correct." (sic)

	User has been warned by an admin re ]. -'''<font color="#FF3300">]</font>''' <font color="#FF3300">]</font> 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	A 6th edit by the user removed the half of the paragraph with the citation: - While not a revert, he seems insistent to edit war with numerous other editors. He has reiterated, on his talk page, his intent to continue personal attacks at his discretion, despite a warning by an admin. -'''<font color="#FF3300">]</font>''' <font color="#FF3300">]</font> 00:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
	:In the future, please use diffs rather than oldids (i.e., links that show the changes made by the editor).
	:Fortunately, this one was pretty easy to tell just from the history of the article. It seems to me that Shawncorey has not technically violated 3RR, as no four reverts fall into 24 hours; however, he is gaming the system by reverting three times within 24 hours. I could block for this, but I think instead I'll just issue a stern warning that reverting more will result in a block. ] ] 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

	== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours Brian Boru and the IP 70.172 ) ==

	*] violation on ]. {{3RRV\|Brian Boru is awesome}}: Time reported: 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning: User has reverted to sockpuppetry to avoid 3RR

	*Comments
	This is just 1 of 3 instances where ] decided to ] my edits and ] from editors whose cut/paste moves I've had corrected in the past few months. These were legit notices and I'm curious as to why a random editor is deleting my comments. After repeated notices to stop deleting comments in edit summaries and on the users talk page the IP began removing the comments. The IP has only been used in instances where the same user was involved in edit disputes. It also looks as if this editor has also removed many disrutived editing notices from their own talk page as well.
	:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} Both ] and the IP 70.172. This 3RR report takes it on faith that the IP and Brian Boru are working together, but it's otherwise hard to explain why:
	:*Brian B. would take such an interest in removing notices of cut-and-paste moves from other people's talk pages (an unusual activity in its own right, besides being a violation of ]), and
	:*An IP 70.172 would arrive out of the middle of nowhere to continue that exact pattern of reverts.
	:I was curious whether the other IP, the one making this report, was an editor in good standing, but I notice that Anthony Appleyard made one of the cut-paste move repairs requested by the IP, so he's probably legit. ] (]) 21:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

	==]/] reported by ] (]) (Result: 24 hour block) ==
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Asian Universities Debating Championship}}. {{3RRV\|JJJ999}}: Time reported: 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
	:also {{3RRV\|122.148.218.27}}

	Previous version reverted to:

	#
	#
	#
	#

	* Diff of warning:

	Half of above edits were done as IP edits. This diff shows they are the same user. The information being added is also a violation of BLP, as the source is a forum post and clearly questionable.
	—] (]) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
	*It is laughable to suggest this is a violation of 3R. I have been preventing the removal of sourced content without consensus, not the other way around. Anyway, it's now up to an AfD.] (]) 08:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
	**This editor actually warned me about 3RR yesterday (see ), even though I had not reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours. Ongoing content dispute regarding this article is being discussed at ]. So far this editor is the only one advocating adding in content that is from a questionable source, and keeps reverting other editors with sharply worded edit summaries. ] (]) 08:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} Both user and UIP address blocked. The diffs show addition of content unsupported by a ] and in violation of WP:BLP as per the talk page discussion. Discussion on the talk page does not support this editor's view of including the material. The diffs are quite clearly within the 24 hour framework.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Paul van Dyk}}. {{3RRV\|Gouryella}}: Time reported: 09:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	A little bird tells me that {{IPuser\|66.121.127.94}} was the IP of the editor before this username was registered, which would make the first revert. In any case, user has made four reversions to ], and was warned after two, with no response to discussion on talk page. The final reversion actually took place slightly outside the 24 hour window, but there is a case for ] here, since the user has been previously warned for edit-warring and repeatedly re-uploading deleted images. <font color="#FF0000">]</font> <font size="1">(])</font> 09:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

	:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} Edit warring on Paul van Dyk --] <sup>]</sup> 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked for 1 week) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Chilean Australian}}. {{3RRV\|TeePee-20.7}}: Time reported: 19:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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


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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	User is edit warring, uncivil, not assuming good faith and ownership of the article. ] (]) 19:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': See also ]. Regards.] (]) 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Also this may require looking closely because some formatting changes occurred during the edit warring, but the demographic text in question that he reverted back to repeatedly is very clearly TeePee's favorite version and not what had been decided by consensus on the talk page.] (]) 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

	{{resolved\|blocked for 1 week by Blnguyen for a number of issues including edit warring}}--] <sup>]</sup> 07:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz}}. {{3RRV\|Boodlesthecat}}: Time reported: 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: varies, described below

	*1st revert: (removing reference, reverting to previous version; this ref was removed several times over the previous days - , )
	*2nd revert: (removing statement and a link )
	*3rd revert: (restores quote)
	*4th revert: (restores the same quote)

	*Diffs of 3RR warning: and previously --] <sup>]</sup> 00:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Boodlesthecat seems to have straightforwardly violated 3RR on the article. I notice there is ] about this article, but I think it is about remarks being made on the Talk page. Before we close this, does anyone see a justification under ] for the edits made by either side? Mostly I see entire ethnicities or national groups being possibly criticized. My guess is that unless a specific individual is defamed, that is not BLP. But let's have a chance for anyone to comment on the relevance of BLP if they wish.

	::Nobody has filed a 3RR about the behavior on the article's Talk page, so that issue is for other noticeboards to assess if they wish. ] (]) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::I fail to see anything approaching a 3RR violation. ] is involved in a content dispute on this article, see and . ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	:{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} Since Boodles is not offering a BLP defence, I think this is a straightforward 3RR case, with four reverts within 24 hours as listed above, and no other editor coming anywhere near four reverts. ] (]) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|YuYu Hakusho}}. {{3RRV\|Abtract}}: Time reported: 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning: (1st), (2nd)

	Abtract, who has a long history of unpunished edit warring, has violated 3RR on the YuYu Hakusho article. He disruptively added a ton of {{tl\|citation}} tags to the article headers, was reverted, put them back, was reverted again, then put them back moved to the end of every paragraph. He also called several undoing of his disruptive tagging as being vandalism. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	*'''Comment''' by ]. While not technically edit warring, Abtract is still making subsequent edits to the page: , , , . These edits have been reverted all at once, yet he is slowly re-placing them one by one. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
	**Indeed I did replace some of them one at a time to give you guys an opportunity to consider them individually and to realise that each one was fully justified ... or are you saying these sections do not require referencing? ] (]) 01:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	*'''Comment''' by ]. First technicalities: The supposed first revert was in fact my original insertion of tags not a revert. The second supposed revert was another attempt to put the tags on but in a different place as advised by Collectonian on my talk page (thinly disguised as a "welcome") so I can't see why she is objecting now (well I suppose I can because she is trying to build a case) this also was not a revert. The 3rd, 4th and 5th are indeed reverts. The supposed 6th is not even an edit so I'm not sure what it is but it certainly isn't a revert. Total three reverts not 4 and certainly not 6. Having said that, three reverts is hardly praisworthy, I admit. My reason is that I was reverting ] following their reversion of my quite legitimate insertion of fact tags (several I admit but the article is in a bit of a state citationwise) ... we each reverted three times ... I put the tags in they removed them. My insertion of the tags was simply doing what the tags were designed for (pointing to unreferenced material which for all I know may be incorred at worst, or original research at best) whereas (IMHO) removing these tags after just telling me "Feel free and remove whatever sections violate policy", was deliberate vandalism. I would like you also to note that I have opened a thread for discussion on the article talk page but neither Collonian nor Sess have been courteous enough to reply, being content to issue warnings on my talk page no doubt. ] (]) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	:*No, I didn't advice you to place them anywhere else, I warned you for removing them (and it wasn't thinly disguised as anything, it was the standard 1st level warning template). You have done 6 reverts. Doing them section by section and moving the tag around does not change that, nor does your tagging these sections out of retaliation for your disagreement with Sess over the article content. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|warned}} Not so interested in the technicalities offered in Abtract's note. As far as I can see other users are objecting to ''Undid disruptive use of citation tags, not every single little sentence needs to be cited'' as per at least one edit summary undoing Abtract's edits. Happy to leave this incident as a warning. Please don't persist with this behaviour.--] <sup>]</sup> 01:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I accept what you say. ] (]) 01:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV\|Kossack4Truth}}: Time reported: 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:


	I think ] is also a sockpuppet of this user, which would contribute further reverts to the list:

	*
	*
	*

	Continual restoration (and expansion) of removed-by-consensus long discussion of Rev. Wright from ] (and deletion of summary-style link to dedicated article). Some edits also add a rant from National Review and/or some unneeded material on alleged association with Bill Ayers.<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>

	Clarification: I think Kossack4Truth may have been careful enough to technically avoid the letter of 3RR (assuming FoveanAuthor is just another editor with the same interest in the same articles). S/h has probably spaced reversions at just under 3/24h. But this barely-rule-meeting pattern has gone on for a number of days, the Kossack4Truth has ignored the consensus on the talk page, and essentially stated his/her intention to keep doing so forever. 3 reversions per 24 hours is not a right, and his/her edits clearly violate the spirit of the rule. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	::Dereks1x has been unusually active lately, and this was one of his favorite targets. It might be worth a checkuser here... --].].] 15:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::The listed reverts by ] span more than a 24-hour period. I recommend that the submitter clarify the claim to say if you think it's a conventional 3RR violation, or is a more general type of edit-warring. If you think ] is a sockpuppet of Kossack4truth some evidence would be good. (Fovean Author is the older of the two accounts). If you think you have enough to justify a checkuser, go ahead and submit the request there. ] (]) 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: page protected) ==
	*] violation on {{Article\|Roman Empire}}. {{3RRV\|Brando130}}: Time reported: 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	* Previous version reverted to
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

	* User has been around for two years, and knows the rule well enough. 4 of the reverts relate to a date and one to some tags, totally 5 reverts. I myself and another user have also had a couple of reverts, which (esp. as an admin) I shouldn't really have done, but edits being forced are serious errors which contradict the text as well as another Featured Article and user was conducting himself in a tendentious manner, such as leaving edit summaries like "stop just edit warring" while reverting and opening talk page comments with statements like ] (<small>]</small>) 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	:Brando130 has violated 3RR and Deacon of Pdnapetzim missed violating it by about 45 minutes. Blocking both would be justifiable, but I've protected the page instead. ] (]) 17:17, 20 May 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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- 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:

	<!-- 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: