Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:12, 8 February 2010 editSulmues (talk | contribs)22,787 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,730 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
] <!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 122 |counter = 491
|algo = old(72h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude> }}</noinclude>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
{{Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}
__TOC__
<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->


== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked by ]) ==


'''Page:''' {{article|Charles Darwin}} <br/> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Anonywiki}}<br/>
Previous version reverted to: <br/>
* 1st revert: <br/>
* 2nd revert: , note promise to edit war on this.<br/>
* 3rd revert: <br/>
* 4th revert: <br/>
* 5th revert: <br/>


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Diff shows warnings at 20:33 and 21:04, 31 December, 2009)<br/>


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{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:'''
Comments:


<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Both editors blocked) ==


'''Page:''' {{article|vertebroplasty}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Vertebralcompressionfractures}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
* 1st revert: 02:39, 3 February 2010
* 2nd revert: 03:33, 3 February 2010
* 3rd revert: 04:44, 3 February 2010
* 4th revert: 03:22, 4 February 2010 - Note that user Vertebralcompressionfractures forgets to log on so his IP 76.238.142.2 shows up. This IP is connected to http://www.dfineinc.com/. This company sells medical instruments used for the described procedure!!
* 5th revert: 06:25, 4 February 2010
* 6th revert: 16:10, 4 February 2010 User Wordstir is an obvious sock puppet of Vertebralcompressionfractures. Check out the lame explanation in the discussion page
* 7th revert: 23:17, 4 February 2010


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Almost every undo I've done has contained a repeated explanation about why he must not change the article.


<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> User:Vertebralcompressionfractures represents a medical devices company and thus he has an EXTREMELY strong motive to deceive people into thinking these devices work. He is incorrigible and has already used a sock puppet. This article desperately needs to be locked. Even when eventually unlocked constant vigilance will be required. <br />
] (]) 06:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|bb|24 hours}} <font face="Arial"> ]&nbsp;(])</font> 11:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: Reported user blocked) == ] (]) 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.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{AN3|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Seven News}}. {{3RRV|LUUSAP}}: Time reported: 08:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
* Revert comparison ("compare"): ().


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* History */ Someone there got caught looking at the wrong stuff on the air.")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "No, this is legit. Watch the video in the link. Someone was caught surfing racy images on the air of a 7 news broadcast.")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "Didn't I tell you to watch the video in the link? This event really happened!")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "Someone was caught looking at skimpy model images while on the air. I put it up for discussion on the talk page to see if anyone would agree or disagree with adding it. Nobody responded, so here it is")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* History */ tweak")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "Hugh, why? Why don't we discuss it on the talk page? I opened up the topic for us there.")</small>


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Diff of warning:
# {{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:'''
—] (]) 08:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} <font face="Arial"> ]&nbsp;(])</font> 10:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


:They are back under an IP ({{Userlinks|129.130.32.229}}) but this time readded (and some more) the content to the article which is a clear breach of the block. ] (]) 01:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
'''Page:''' {{article|RAGS International}}<br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|User:119.160.18.209}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}


'''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:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert: Note the fact that IP's edit summary is misleading, as they are actually making the redirects. (edit summary:Please discuss this matter on talk page instead of re-directing again. Thanks)
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert: Note again the misleading edit summary.
* 4th revert: edit summary: ''Please discuss this matter on talk page instead of re-directing again. Thanks''


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
The user is constantly redirecting this page to ], although this disambiguation already includes a link to said article. Although the User has not commented on ], though they have been encouraged, ] has been making the same edits and has commented there. From their comments, it seems like they are constantly reverting because they think the disambiguation page is somehow being used for advertisement.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
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))
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
*'''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)
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


: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)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
The user has also been making disruptive edits and edit warring on the following pages, and there seems to be a trend:
*
*
*- The edits done by this editor are exactly the same as the edits of who was previously blocked from editing.
* please note the misleading edit summaries once again.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
Please also see editor's efforts to reason with the IP , and . The IP seems to be focused on articles relating to ], ], and ] (See user contributions). Also, after I stopped reverting their edits on all the above pages, they resorted to vandalizing my own talk page with edit warring templates with strange edit summaries such as "I think you don't know that things can't be deleted on wikipedia". see .
-<i><b><font color="#32B430">]</font></b></i>(<font color="#1A74E2">]</font>) 09:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::In addition to the above, the IP is at 3RR on ]. —<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 10:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
Blocked for exceeeding 3RR and edit warring on other articles, personal attacks, tendentious copying of this report as though it was a report against Omirocksthisworld. ] (]) 10:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for your help. -<i><b><font color="#32B430">]</font></b></i>(<font color="#1A74E2">]</font>) 10:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{Article|Classical liberalism}}. {{3RRV|Can I touch it?}}: Time reported: 21:35, 5 February 2010 (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:'''
* Revert comparison ("compare"): ().
# {{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 are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC'' '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
# () <small>(edit summary: "John Locke is said below to be a major contributors to classical liberalisms "formulation," along with Adam Smith. Therefore he certainly ought to be noted in this sentence.")</small>
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
# () <small>(edit summary: "Putting Adam Smith here. He's even more discussed in this article. His picture is even in it. So naturally his named should be mentioned.")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "] revision 342033168 by ] (]) What you mean? Adam Smith not being discussed on talk page.")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "putting Hobbes in the list. Source said he had a "major impact" on classical liberalism. And he's talked about in the article, so his name should be here.")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* History */ Locke's private property philosophy is essential")</small>


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
—] (]) 21:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:Not sure if this is even worthy of a response. Obviously there is only one revert there on my part, which was the name "Adam Smith." No sign of edit warring either, as I explained my edits in the edit summaries unlike those who deleted my edits who didn't specify why. Note the addition of sources by me as well. Clearly no original research going on either. ] (]) 21:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


::It certainly looks like they have reverted each others edits at least once and made other edits in pursuit of possibly controversial ends as you can see from their discussion on the ] -- it appears that there are more disagreements going on than simply adding the name "Adam Smith" once. It seems that the source of the disagreemnt is whether it was indeed a return to actual classical liberalism or merely a return to classical liberalist ideals and who sparked any particular subset of that and how much influence one particular person may or may not have had in a return to either a given set of ideals or a particular ideal. ] (]) 22:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Can you imagine someone deleting Adam Smith's name being mentioned as being a contributor to classical liberalism? His picture is even in the article! These reversions against my edits are really making no sense at all. ] (]) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} This was edit warring, and you did break the three-revert rule by reverting 4 times on the same article within 24 hours. Just because you feel particular edits are right, that does not excuse you from reverting, unless the edits were blatantly bad-faith, vandalism, or violations of ]. As your reverts fall into none of these categories, you should not be reverting but discussing. <font face="Arial"> ]&nbsp;(])</font> 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:Repeated edits made by one person which are then changed/reverted by another person is sort of the definition of edit warring. One of you (or both of you, or neither of you) should probably take a break from editing the article for a while. Or, if you both really want to continue, then discuss things on the talk page until some sort of consensus is reached. Or, if consensus cannot be reached, then perhaps take it to ] and ask for a third opinion to build consensus on either side of these really minor disagreements. ] (]) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
#


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{article|Template:Mureş County}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Iaaasi}}


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Previous version reverted to:


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.


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->


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


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: familiar with 3RR


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
The user discussed her/his edit on the talk pages , however, it seems that s/he doesn't want to follow the 3RR rule. There are several edits outside the reported ones but these fall within 24 hours.--] (]) 10:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
{{AN3|b|48 hours}} As this user has been blocked before for the same reason, I've extended the standard block time. <font face="Arial"> ]&nbsp;(])</font> 12:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{article|Bill Cosby}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Eekerz}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
# {{diff2|1268272867|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
# {{diff2|1268269093|23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268248948|21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
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:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
* 1st revert: – Eekerz adds Cosby death hoax with supposed screenshot of CNN
* 2nd revert: – Eekerz re-inserts same bit
* 3rd revert: – Eekerz re-inserts same bit
* 4th revert: – Eekerz re-inserts same bit but adds a blog link about a different topic altogether


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


:'''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)
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
: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)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
: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) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
User:Eekerz has not yet responded to discussion at ]. ] (]) 11:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} <font face="Arial"> ]&nbsp;(])</font> 12:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours for disruptive editing) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' Multiple articles <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Caden}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
* 1st revert: – Caden reverts at ]
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 2nd revert: – Caden reverts at ]
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 3rd revert: – Caden reverts at ]
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
* 4th revert: – Caden reverts at ]
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"
* 5th revert: – Caden reverts at ]
* 6th revert: – Caden reverts at ]
* 7th revert: – Caden reverts at ]
* 8th revert: – Caden reverts at ]


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:


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


Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
] has apparently decided that ''any'' image made by ] should not be deleted from ''any'' article. Yesterday, ] began a large-scale deletion of many of Daniel's images, and has been questioned regarding this action at ], but some of the images truly were not helpful to the articles in which they appeared. Caden reverted Fastilysock's editing work with the edit summary of "Revert vandalism" in 11 cases. I studied the situation carefully and found eight of the images not worthy of appearing, and I removed them with ample edit summaries. Each of these was reverted by Caden with no summary, no discussion. An attempt to engage Caden at his talk page . With no edit summaries to determine reasoning, and no discussion, I cannot accept the reversions in good faith. Taken as a whole, this behavior constitutes edit warring. ] (]) 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ]. <font face="Arial"> ]&nbsp;(])</font> 12:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
Sorry for this wrong format - but I am not familiar with this template that looks rather complicated - there is an ongoing edit war in the article about the ERC - someone tries to establish a long personal version, first as user "technologist9" than as IP. Severarl reverts over the last four weeks ] (]) 15:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}} Next time take note of the link to a if filling out the form is too tedious. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 21:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale/No 3RR at time) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{article|Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians}} <br />
# {{diff2|1268346980|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Borsoka}}
# {{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:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


Previous version reverted to:


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That is because {{u|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{u|Shecose}}, {{tqq|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
In the talk page of the article I have provided my reasons for removing literary sources that do not document the Romanians, and for grouping sources by century and removing what i consider POV sections in the article, the replies i have received from ] i consider being incivil. I have explained him/her that in the article talk page, and provided him link to ], on which he replied ''"Dear Criztu, sorry but I do not understand your above remarks."''. Further more, after i have noticed him about the 3RR on his TalkPage, he accuses me of "faking content of sources" and "obvious vandalism", which i consider continuous Incivility. ] (]) 07:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:{{AN3|nve}} ] <small> ]]'''</small> 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
{{takenote}} Same report by reporting user by re-signing their signature at 11:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
<p><u>New comments</u></br>
Not 3RR:
the first "revert": Revision as of 12:39, 2010 '''February 5''' and Revision as of 09:29, 2010 '''February 6''' and (25 intermediate revisions not shown).
the second revert is also not a revert and so on...--'''<font color="#151B8D" face="comic sans ms">]</font>'''<sup><font color="red">]</font></sup> 11:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:{{AN3|d}} Closed again as it's the same report, simply re-signed. As noted , please stop. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 13:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==


'''Page:''' {{article|Aeroflot destinations}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' ] '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
# "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
# "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"


Previous version reverted to:


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
#: "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."
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert: # "Lady Saso: Reply"
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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).
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
*Seriously? You both seem to be engaging in tit-for-tat edit warring, and all the while, the article's talk page hasn't been edited since November. Work this out in talk. ] (]) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
* OK, I've protected the page. Work this out. ] (]) 05:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:*What complete garbage. As has been explained to the poor "victim" , additions of new destinations '''MUST''' include a valid source and, if required, an appropriate valid summary. This is a basic editing requirement across Misplaced Pages and also for the . It is not a movable line either. And NO, "Aeroflot's planning department told me"
::: you defigurate my words, as usually. I said Aeroflot '''NETWORK planning''' Department. Be a man, who can face the truth. --] (]) 02:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
is '''NOT''' a valid source. ] (]) 07:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:*The complaining "victim" also seems to be blissfully unaware of basic concepts, such as ], ] and ], preferring instead to go all comrade this and Kondoleeza (whatever that is!) that. Misplaced Pages's basic requirements are very simple: if a reliable and valid source for reference is not provided - in accordance with the three tenets cited above - edits will be reverted, no matter how right or wrong the editor/victim is. ] (]) 17:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::*First, I thank you for protecting this page (that I created). Second, few fords about THIS Jasepl. He (or it - I can't read this nickname) simply violates the rules. He (it?) demands others to offer a VALID source, but he (it?) doesn't give such a VALID source for any other date/flight/aircompany. When he (it?) is kindly corrected (with all necessary sources), he (it?) just starts his favourite game - reverting: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10, 20 times a day. Nothing personal. Just trying to be objective. --] (]) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (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.
*May I ask your attention again: '''Jasepl has deleted official code-share partners of Aeroflot''' (indicated on its web-site - link available), without any VALID source. I've kindly asked him (here and here ) to explain why he has done it. --] (]) 02:19, 8 February 2010 (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 ].
:#Yes, that is because Aeroflot do not codeshare with those airlines. Only the reverse is true, as is evident from the very same link. If you bothered to familarise yourself with the ] guidelines, instead of screaming Comrade this and Kondoleeza that, you would know that there is a difference between the two.
:#And I demand nothing; Misplaced Pages does. If you bothered to familarise yourself with Misplaced Pages's basic editing guidelines (such as ], ] and ] to name but a few), instead of screaming Comrade this and Kondoleeza that, you would know that too.
:#All this has been explained to you dozens of times. But oh no, you'd rather scream Comrade this and Kondoleeza that. Not to forget how the entire English-speaking world is on some collective Russia-bashing mission and how you're being singled out for targeting. It's not true, so get over it.
:#Lastly, and pay attention, because this is important: If a reliable and valid source for reference is not provided - in accordance with the three tenets cited above - edits will be reverted, no matter how right or wrong you may be. Compris? ] (]) 04:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


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


] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{article|UFC 109}} <br />
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Paralympiakos}}

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

<u>Comments: He's trying to make a revolution in Mixed Martial Arts Project, we always edit whit same way, and he try to do this different.

--] (]) 02:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)</u> <br />

* What the heck? You're ''both'' well over the 3RR. And, once again, the article's talk page hasn't been edited for months. I should really block both of you, but I'm going to protect the page and let you both work it out. ] (]) 05:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] and ] reported by ] (Result:Vexorg blocked, Sceptre strongly urged to talk more and revert less) ==

'''Page:''' {{article|Criticism of YouTube}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Vexorg}}

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert: <small>(edit summary: "/* Censorship */ political NPOV edit undo")</small>
* 2nd revert: <small>(edit summary: "/* Censorship */ ADL isn't just about Israel")</small>
* 3rd revert: <small>(edit summary: "/* Censorship */ restporing properly sourced material - please stop edit warring")</small>
* 4th revert: <small>(edit summary: "] revision 342392362 by ] (]) please stop taking an axe to this articel just becuase you want it deleted")</small>

He's continuing to do it, with a bunch of bare-faced lies. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 04:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:Just a note if anyone's thinking of blocking both parties (i.e., me as well): seeing as Vexorg was reinserting poorly sourced/unsourced material about living people (most notably, the Venezuela corruption charges; the source given is dead), then the reversions to remove the material are exempt from 3RR. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 04:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

::: ] I'm amazed you are reporting me for edit warring when I am simply restoring sourced material removed by ] becuase he wants to further an argument for deletion of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_YouTube and since getting a response that is pretty much 99% Keep as been taking an axe to the article in a manner which is akin to vandalism and is certainly not editing in good faith. I have requested the article in question for full protection here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Criticism_of_YouTube_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 and simply wanted to restore the article to it's proper state before it was protected. If anything you should be reporting ] for edit warring who has removed much properly sourced material. ] (]) 04:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::The removals are actually an ''improvement'', so that if the unwise act of this article being kept happens, we at least have an article of some quality instead of the tripe we had before. I mean, half the sources were dead, half the content was unsourced, and we were sourcing a couple of far-right blogs as proof of "censorship"! ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 05:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact I report ] for 3RR as well ...
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sceptre}}
* 1st revert: <small>(edit summary: "undo; these days, "Zionist" is too charged a word to be simply allowed to be used without context for the term - which, in a article about YouTube, would be off-topic")</small>
* 2nd revert: <small>(edit summary: " rm poorly sourced material, and the ADL tripe. The quality of the sources is not good enough for the ADL thing: it's like saying "Several writers have criticised Barack Obama for being black" and sourcing that to Stormfront")</small>
* 3rd revert: <small>(edit summary: "remove; seriously, are you even checking the sources? Most of them are dead or non-existent")</small>
* 4th revert: <small>(edit summary: "I'll stop edit warring when you stop reinserting unsourced material")</small>

:How about instead you two both stop reverting, and start ] instead? Wouldn't that be easier? ] <sup>]</sup> 05:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::There's nothing to discuss about the reversions. Vexorg is reinserting BLP-violating material, and such, I am reverting his violations of BLP. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 05:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::If its not vandalism, then you have to be willing to discuss your reversions. I don't think anyone is saying that was vandalism, so its a standard content dispute. BLP is a bad justification for doing just about anything, an action should be able to stand on its own merits. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::: ] has attacked this article with an axe as a retaliation against the overwhelming consensus of '''keep''' against his request for article deletion here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_YouTube - I have stopped reverting but my resotring of properly sourced material is niot a violation of 3RR. ] (]) 05:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
And notice I actualy asked for this page to be protected from ]'s axings while the deletion debate was going on. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Criticism_of_YouTube_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 ] (]) 05:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Probably best to discuss the inclusion of the sections where it will matter, at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::The entire section about the Honduras corruption scandal is entirely unsourced, as the sources given are all dead. As there is no substantiation for government figures being accused of corruption, BLP mandates its removal. I don't care if they ''have'' been, it's not my job to source that. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 05:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::: What about all the other properly sourced material you have been rampantly removing for a POV agenda to help your case at the article deletion request? ] (]) 05:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::If anything, it's ''harming'' my deletion request. If you count dead links, far-right racist blogs, fact tags, and swathes of unsourced material as "properly sourced", then I weep for the state of Misplaced Pages. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 05:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, FFS, the article has a talk page. Use it. ] (]) 06:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:There's nothing to talk about. Vexorg's reversions reinserted information about living people that was poorly sourced. No amount of talk paging is going to change that fact. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 06:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::Quite simply, you could have avoided a lot of the problem by using the talk page. Sure, if you say "BLP vio", the onus is on the party re-adding the material. But does s/he know that? If you clearly explained the nature of the problem, you might (a) convince the person to stop re-adding the material, or (b) make the violation much more clear cut. This sort of behaviour muddies the water, badly. ] (]) 06:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Occupied Palestinian Territory}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Drork}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Previous version reverted to: reverted to redirect as before this edit

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
There is a discussion on the talk page of the article regarding a merge. So far Drork has argued for it with one other user saying "support per Drork". Two users (myself included) have argued against it, yet Drork claims there is now a consensus to merge the article and has edit-warred to support this supposed consensus.

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the talk page, only section there is on the merge.

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 08:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
] supported the forking of the article ] based on the claim that this term has different meaning than the term "]". He has been explained that the difference does not exist, and there was no reason for forking. He argued, but eventually accepted the explanation. He kept arguing that the name "Occupied Palestinian Territory" was better, and therefore the "Palestinian territories" article should be merged into it. He was explained why this was a bad idea, and this claim was received with objections. The "Occupied" article did not include any significant new information about the subject of the Palestinian territories, so I simply turned it into a redirection once the discussion came to an end. ] reverted the change over and over again, leaving me no other option but to re-revert him. ] (]) 10:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - This is obviously a controversial subject, but neither of you should be reverting changes "over and over again" or "re-reverting" each other, because you both can be blocked for that kind of stuff. You should keep working on the talk page on this... ] (]) 10:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Not going to close this one myself, but calling the first action a revert is a bit of a stretch. You're claiming he reverted back to a version ''from May''. That's too long back to be considered a genuine revert. Obviously, there's edit-warring going on, but it takes two to tango, and I can understand why Drork might have thought consensus was reached for merging on the talk page (it's clearly more than two editors in support of merging the articles). This notice seems poorly-evidenced. -- ''']''' 12:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The version from May is not mine, but it proves that there used to be a consensus about the matter, until someone decided to turn the redirection into an article. To my best judgment, the talk page showed that such consensus was rebuilt upon merger request. I don't know how long such a discussion should last. Obviously not all editors on WP want to express their opinion about the issue, and those who were willing to comment used every conceivable argument pro and against. Since those opposing the merger admitted themselves that there was no difference between the terms-in-question, and resorted to the claim that there should be a merger but to the other direction, I saw no point in continuing the discussion. ] (]) 14:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

*{{AN3|p}} In general, people who initiate or comment on controversial merger requests may not be sufficiently impartial to determine consensus. I've protected the page for three days. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::To be honest, I have a real problem with Malik Shabazz's move. First of all, he's just given a prize to the person who initiated the war edit, just because he was first to complain, and because he has friends who were able to revert my legitimate edit, without causing him to break the 3rev rule. Secondly Malik Shabazz was one of the contributor to this article. Even though his contributions were fair and productive, his involvement in the article's editing may cause his reluctance to merge it, even unaware. Third, how long should a merger discussion go on, and who is supposed to close it? POV forking is explicitly forbidden for very good reasons. The editors who initiated the article gave only one reasoning to this forking, which was refuted on the article's talk page. People are afraid to take the next step, because they know it might lead to an edit-war, and they will be scolded. The issue of articles dealing with the Palestine Question is very delicate, and therefore attempts to POvize articles or POV forking should not be accredited, otherwise en-wp's credibility would be compromised. ] (]) 17:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never edited ] or its Talk page. Of course I protected ]. I recommended at ] that you and the other editors involved in the dispute ask an uninvolved editor to determine consensus. This isn't the appropriate forum to discuss content. Finally, the alternative to protecting the article would be to block you for edit-warring; would you have preferred that outcome? —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:I responded to your remark on the article's talk page. I don't like the patronizing tone of your last remark. This is not a game of power, this is about how en-wp is going to be more credible. With all due respect, your last move didn't make it more credible, whether it is accompanied by a block or a "pardon". ] (]) 17:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

::This isn't about making Misplaced Pages more credible, it's about stopping an editor from from ]. I had two choices, protect the article or block the editor. I'd like to think I made the right choice, but you're starting to make me wonder. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:::], you should know that it's ] that got you on this page. And viewing this as a humble independent observer, there's clearly no ] that I can see regarding Malik's "move" (nor of his giving out of any prizes; I know I didn't get one ;<). Why are you still arguing on this page after being advised not to? ] (]) 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::::I will criticize a decision made by an admin if I thing it is very wrong. Suggesting that I am disrupting a project is a very poor judgment on behalf of an admin, and the fact that I chose to criticize his decision does not make him entitled to question my motives. His decision not to block me is not a favor for me. It is his obligation to exercise discernment. Unfortunately he went half way in doing so, and I gave a detailed explanation why it is so. ] (]) 20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

== The climate change users group - again! reported by ] (Result: reporting user warned) ==

'''Page:''' {{article|Climate Skepticism}} <br />
'''Users being reported:''' </br>
:{{userlinks|Canterbury Tail}}
:{{userlinks|Tony Sidaway}}
:{{userlinks|MuffledThud}}
:{{userlinks|SchuminWeb}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

http://en.wikipedia.org/Climate_Skepticism

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Climate_Skepticism

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

I have a neutral view on Climate Change. Having read the WP coverage, it is impossible to get the sceptical perspective. Not that is the 'correct' view, but that perspective. Hence, we need this page. But a group of users is deleting any such materail. This is not how WP can survive as a 'reference' work. (Do we want it to, though?) ] (]) 14:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

* {{AN3|w}}. Gemtpm, please seek collaborative discussion with your fellow volunteers - simply reverting to get your way is not productive. - ] <small>(])</small> 15:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept the right to reach a consensus. In the meantime, pages should not be 'redirected' which is in effect a deletion of the content. I can be blocked, but this will provide a fairly clear example of the failure fo Misplaced Pages to even pretend to be able to be a neutral 'reference' resource. There is a gross bias towards the 'climate change lobby' here, the skeptiks point of view has been deliberately supressed for several years, and now that events in teh public domain have made the former a 'minority' positon and latter a matter of great public interest, WP needs to remedy its past bias - and fast! I welcome a proper debate, so far there has been no attempt to have one. ] (]) 18:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The use of 'redirects' is a problem here. I do not consdier this to be 'editing' - it is a form of deletion without going through any process. This 'edit war' indicates a systemic problem with Misplaced Pages, as does the routine banning or threatening to ban users such as myself who object to this tactic being used. ] (]) 18:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:Is this really where you should be discussing ], ]? This is not the place for the "proper debate" you seek, I assure you... ] (]) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|same-sex marriage}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ctjf83}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:The first one was unsourced. This report is the user getting back at me for <font face="Kristen ITC">] ]</font> 21:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::The first may have been unsourced but when you were reverted a citation was added (which you didn't bother to look into); you just began edit warring to push your POV. Apparently you have been at it for a while; I just noticed your recent reverts.21:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::First link is unrelated too. <font face="Kristen ITC">] ]</font> 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Result''' - 24 hours to ] and ] for 3RR violation. ] has only two clear reverts this time around, but he is continuing an edit war on the same article for which he was reported here on 4 February, so he is blocked as well. ] (]) 06:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Kent School}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|86.179.224.112}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
A is filed to link this IP to blocked ]. The account and multiple IP's have been edit warring and block evading at ] (and reverting my edits wholesale on other articles). A discussion is going on and is about to be wrapped up at the article's talk page, where the IP does not participate.--] (]) 22:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:'''Result''' - ] has been semiprotected. ] (]) 05:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Samuel Sevian}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GSP-Rush}}

User ] is still causing problems on ]. He was warned about 3RR on his talk page last month. He violated that today. His edits also violate Consensus, Crystal Ball, and Original Research. he has reverted four times today:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Was warned about 3RR and edit warring a month ago: . (And he remooved it .)

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - see article talk page.


<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Yet again bubba73 put me a warning that unfounded, he tries to take off
things whit out justifying himself and say he has reach a consensus but
doesn't give me any link to any consensus. I would like to know, for
any administrator out ther, how can i report bubba73 for making claim
that are unfounded and trying to repeatably get me block went his at
fault. This is taking up my time, forcing me to take my time and come
here and defend myself. I think this is unacceptable, if he would prove
to me or give me a valid reason i wouldn't of undone it but he just
impulsively took it off. ] (]) 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also to justifies the passed warning, first off the warning was issued by, who other then bubba73. And also i was warned, not because i undid thing, but because i had just started editting and i told him to ''fuck off'', because i was unexperienced and he was harassing me. And since then i have learn to deal whit people on wikipedia, making agreements and staying polite, although a few days ago bubba73 told me to and i quote '' STFU ''. And for the most part his anger wasn't justified because his the one who harass me. Bringing up passed conflict whiteout explain wat happen is incredibly unethical. ] (]) 03:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

: The consensus was on his own talk page but he removed it (the comment by EdJohnston, between the first 3RR warning and the Civility warning). Also, the consensus is on the ] talk page and in the history of the article itself - he is the only one putting it in and there are several removing it. He also made the unsourced claim that the person is a ] (see the ] talk page) and I told him to supply a reference or ] (and I literally said <nowiki>]</nowiki> and didn't use the words, see ). He did neither. ] ], 03:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
: My page is my page and i can remove wat i want form it. Also ther no consensus on my page all ther is 2 people, you and Edjohnson ( witch you warned him of me so he took your side at that time ). Also the ''consensus'' on the Sevian talk page like you call it isn't conclusive at all. Some people made statements about removing it but never replied back after i wrote argument or went they did replied they talk about other subjects. And for the unsourced claims i actually step back ( even tho he is a candidate master) because i couldn't prove it whit reliable sources. But like i stated once fide release it on the Internet i will re put it.
Also i would like this to be the last time i half to justifies my self for undoing thing he undid whiteout having a valid reason. It unreasonable to ask me to defend this all the time. Or at the very least ther has to be a way of sanctioning him for falsely reporting me all the time.] (]) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
: You can't keep claiming that you didn't know there was a consensus because it was right there on your talk page (before you removed it along with the two warnings). And from ] "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." ] ], 05:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*'''Result''' - 24 hours for edit warring. GSP-Rush has been persistently re-adding his favorite material after getting a number of warnings to work for consensus, and has been incivil on the article Talk to people who were trying to explain Misplaced Pages policy. Both parties should avoid using 'STFU' in discussions. ] (]) 05:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Online bingo}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sumbuddi}}

User ] made his fourth removal (all in a few hours) of a Dmoz link that has been on the ] article for many months if not years. His justification is basically ]. He was warned after his third revert but then made a fourth revert anyway.

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Was warned about 3RR: . Likewise also removed a perfectly acceptable Dmoz link that has been there for years

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
I pointed the User to ] which states Dmoz links are valid links, in this case especially because it is a high spam subject with hundreds of possible external links. I suggested he go to ] if he had a problem with the Dmoz guidance there, and on my third revert I warned him about 3RR. (I admit since this should be about the least controversial external link in the encyclopedia, and is plainly appropriate, I do not understand this editor's actions.) ] (]) 07:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|d}} Clearly a dispute, thus please consider ] guidance for tips on resolving. No clear ] vio, though if reverts continue without discussion then someone (or both) likely to end up blocked for edit warring generally. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 09:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Dacia (Roman province)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Criztu}}

Permanent modification of a well-sourced article without using reliable sources, or by abusing reliable sources. Modification of the text of sentences based on reliable sources in a way that the new text does not represent the writers' view any more. Ignoring any proposal for cooperation. The details can be found on the article's talk page. ] (]) 07:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|d}} Warned: Note that both of you are in a dispute, thus you should be actively using discussion and if needed consult the ] guidance. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 10:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|University of Miami}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Racepacket}}

Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert: (added publishers and changed + to =)
* 2nd revert: (added sentence and footnote about $15 million grant)
* 3rd revert: (corrected class size and added footnote)
* 4th revert: (added footnote on year of founding law school)
* 5th revert: (added two footnotes about Pearson becoming President}

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: ,

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
This is not a result of edit warring as I just explained on ] and .

I copied the article to prevent ] from changing = symbols to + symbols. My copy does not have the unnecessary quote marks around the ref names. User Ryulong now agreed that we can work on the article without using the quote marks and reset the article to that state. For some strange reason user Daedalus969 has added them back in and is playing strange games in an effort to prevent me from adding more footnotes to the article. These changes make absolutely no difference to the displayed article. ] (]) 09:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:He never agreed to anything. He self-reverted out of frustration. That isn't agreeing.

:However, content is irrelevant. You edit warred, and that is all that matters.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 09:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::Where are the attempts where Daedalus969 tried to resolve this dispute? You are using Rylong's harassing messages as evidence that *you* tried to work this out. Ryulong and I have worked this out. We are not even trying to alter any visible content. I am just trying to add content without having to check each time that Ryulong has not snuck in and replaced a = with a +. I have not reverted anything, I am adding footnotes. Why are you trying to engineer an edit war when none exists? I don't see what changes you are trying to make and I don't want to take the time to make sure that you haven't accidentally picked up some of Ryulong's stray + symbols. If you can't guarantee the integrity of the edits that you are making, please don't make them. Please explain why you are making the changes that you are making, because I don't understand your ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::There is no evidence that I tried to solve anything. The text I have presented has not said such. It simply provided a link to a diff that attempts were made to solve the dispute. Lastly, there is no point that I am making. You edit warred. If you don't like our rules here, go somewhere else.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 09:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Daedalus, I don't think that adding new, undisputed footnotes is edit warring. Assuming that I edit warred, would it not follow that you and Ryulong edit warred as well since you are adding in the invisible quote marks to make the article imperceptively different from the version that I was working from? I don't want to edit war and respect the rules. If I understood what change you were trying to make to the article, I would be sure that it remained undisturbed. As far as I can see, I am accused of reverting a change that does not exist, while you deleted and immediately added back in the footnote in question just to make a ]. It is 4:30 a.m,, why have you wasted another hour of both of our lives on top of the two hours that User:Ryulong wasted with his silly, invisible quotation marks? ] (]) 09:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::You can think that all you want, doesn't make it true. You reverted, he reverted. You both edit warred. If he gets blocked as well, oh well, but you still edit warred.

:::::Secondly, you do not know my motivations for reverting or adding in any edit, so don't you dare accuse me of disrupting to make a point. You reverted, and edited, at the same time. I reverted your revert, and added back in the edit. Talk about a ] violation.

:::::If it is so late, then go to bed. Look at it this way. If you are in the right, you won't be blocked.

:::::Lastly, I have wasted no-ones time. It is your fault that you didn't take it to the talk page, and chose to edit war instead of discuss. Learn to take some responsibility for your actions. I am doing nothing to prevent you from going to bed.

:::::And stop it with the personal attacks of disrupting to make a point.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::(EC) Daedalus, I don't think that adding new footnotes is edit warring. Assuming that I edit warred, would it not follow that you and Ryulong edit warred as well since you are adding in the invisible quote marks to make them imperceptively different from the version that I was working from? I don't want to edit war and respect the rules. If I understood what change you were trying to make to the article, I would be sure that it remained undisturbed. As far as I can see, I am accused of reverting a change that does not exist, while you deleted and immediately added back in the footnote in question just to make a ]. It is 4:30 a.m,, why have you wasted another hour of both of our lives on top of the two hours that User:Ryulong wasted with his silly, invisible quotation marks? ] (]) 09:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so the record is clear: Here are Daedalus' diffs (which could be viewed as edit warring for edit warring sake <s>although they lacked any visable effect on the article</s>):
*
*
*

Here is Ryulong's diffs:
*
*
*
*

This is the first time in history where a person (Daedalus) deliberately started an edit war over invisible content with someone who was not aware that he was changing that person's invisible content just to make a ] and to bring the artificial edit war here, instead of working it out on the talk page (which I am willing to do.) ] (]) 09:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:Jesus. H. Christ. Would you ]? You keep acting as if I meant to fuck up the page. Also the first two diffs you link to are identical.—] (]) 10:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
** Thank you. I fixed the second diff. ] (]) 15:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
* (EC) I think that Daedalus has the chronology mixed up. I made the 3:32 edit without realizing that Daedalus had made the 3:23 edit. He then left a warning message on my talk page at 3:43 and I responded on his talk page at 3:53. By then he had already filed this complaint at 3:47. So, Daedalus' claim that I should have worked it out on his talk page does not match the chronology. This is like the old Jimmy Stewart movie about Harvey the invisible rabbit. I am being accused of edit warring over changes that nobody, including me, can see. ] (]) 10:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
**Actually, their tag teaming results in perhaps unintended, substantive changes. In Daedalus deletes ''two'' footnotes. In the , he only adds just''one'' back in. And then Ryulong comes along and the ref name that was common to both footnotes. Daedalus does not explain why he deleted the second footnote. ] (]) 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - It was suggested that I take a look at this thread by an admin who knows I've got a particular opinion on the formatting of references. To help clarify the issue of quotes and such, I think it would be easier for me to simply re-post a that I left on a fellow editor's talk page:
*::<div style="font-size:0.8em">You are ''absolutely correct'' when you say quotation marks are not required on the value of attributes in ], unless the values have spaces in them; however, being a web designer, I have noted that the MediaWiki software employed by Misplaced Pages tries valiantly to be written in the "transitional" flavor of ], rather than HTML. Being fanatical about web standards, I am aware that ''true'' XHTML 1.0 Transitional must adhere to the standards of ] ] so that it can be easily scraped by an XML parser. This happens with various applications that "read" Misplaced Pages and reuse the data, but when such applications encounter documents that aren't well-formed they either fail completely, or have to employ various algorithms to handle the ]. In this particular case, one of the rules of well-formedness is that the values of all attributes ''must'' be quoted. The space before the element-closing forward slash is not required, but it is put there to assist somewhat older web browsers that have compatibility issues. Now it can be argued that most of Misplaced Pages ignores these rules (largely because 99.9% of editors will be unfamiliar with the concept of well-formed XHTML), but I like to think the little universe that is my Watchlist can be a shining beacon of perfection!</div>
*:I hope you have found this perspective useful and interesting. -- ] (]) 19:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

==] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
Text added:
1st:
2nd:
3rd:

Thanks--] (] · ] · ]) 11:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Chilean American}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Al-Andalus}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Hi, I hope I've done this right. I've listed 3 reverts counting the fourth as the original addition of material. The user has removed references and contradicted the original statement. The counter reversions were made by 3 different editors (including me), 2 of which had edit summaries requesting discussion on the talk page. No discussion was forthcoming however when I warned on their talk page they refered me to a debate on Chilean people: . There are also existing warnings on the users talk page regarding the article Chile. Does this warrant action? <br />
] (]) 13:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

== Concern over ] ==
Hi all, this isn't a report as such, but over at ], a user has twice removed a link to the Interpol website with a listing of the guy as 'wanted' for money laundering, saying that the article is being 'vandalized by Cherney's political enemies' (e.g. and ). In addition, the level 3 header 'Wanted for money laundering and organized crime' has been replaced by 'Harassed by political enemies with false charges of money laundering and organized crime'. I just wanted to confirm that reverting this removal of content is the right thing to do! ] ] 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Keith Olbermann}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Reality Maker}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert: (marked as an undo)
* 2nd revert: (Same content on "imminent cancellation, but with the addition of refs)
* 3rd revert: (marked as an undo)
* 4th revert: (marked as an undo)
* 5th revert: (marked as an undo; done ''after'' being warned that s/he was over the 3rr)
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (prior block for edit-warring, over a year ago)

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
* While Soxwon is also involved in this edit war, there are real BLP concerns here, and his removal of these additions seems appropriate. ] (]) 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b| 72 hours}} ] (]) 17:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|<Daniel_Tammet}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|<85.210.180.155}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Daniel_Tammet&action=edit&oldid=342683907

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

<] (]) 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)>

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

'''Page:''' {{article|albanian language}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|athenean}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring :

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
I am reporting this user for edit-warring. He has NOT broken the 3rr rule, but his behavior of deleting 72 valid references is very much uncalled for. ] (]) --Sulmues 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Vandalism

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

    • I am going to advise that we delay any action here until Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shecose is resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      That is because CNMall41's only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this is block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Shecose, to satisfy his personal ego (above and in Special:Diff/1268349248 too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:00 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
    2. 04:26 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
    3. 04:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
    4. 04:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
    5. 05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 04:43 9 January 2025 (UTC): "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
    2. 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: Reply"

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 04:36 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: New Section"
    2. 05:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: Reply"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Categories: