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 23:53, 4 August 2010 editTariqabjotu (talk | contribs)Administrators36,354 edits →User:Tedickey reported by User:Daven200520 (Result: Stale): + reply: you clearly don't understand what edit-warring is← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,714 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<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 = 137 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |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}}<noinclude>
__TOC__</noinclude>
<!--<?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: ]) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Autobiography of Malcolm X}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Malik Shabazz}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- 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. -->


'''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|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 3rd revert:
# {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 4th revert:
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:


'''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. -->
Diff of edit warring:


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- 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 />Since June 25th, User:Malik Shabazz has reverted these edits 9 times, the first three are within 24 hours of each other, and the first 6 within about 51 hours. He refuses to engage in the talk page discussion, has ignored talk page RfC consensus, and has supplied scant sources for his claims:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{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) ==
:Reverts from June? Really? Maybe you should re-read ], Gabe. This should be closed as stale. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
:PS: This isn't the page to bring a content dispute, Gabe. Nice try, though. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
::Stale? The edit war is ongoing. In fact, '''everytime someone has changed the lede to co-author you have reverted them, since June, every time'''. Also, '''you made a substantive revert today''', here, . So no, this is not stale. It's also not a content dispute Malik, you know that, it's an edit war, but nice try, though you need some work on your ], IMHO. ] (]) 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It may be instructional for the closing admin to look at ] where nearly every uninvolved user agreed that the author of the ''Autobiography of Malcolm X'' was, shockingly, Malcolm X. An editor who was part of that discussion continues editing contrary to an established consensus and then files a report on edits going back over a month should be facing a block. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)</font></small>


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
::"Reverts from June?" - 9 out of the last 42 edits to ] are reverts by Malik, all within the past 35 days, .
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
:@ Nableezy, thanks for that suggestion to the reviewing admin, the link you provided will support my assertion. ] (]) 21:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
:@ Nableezy, you should look here , where I provided 182 ]s that consider Haley a co-author, including Harvard, MIT, Oxford University, UCLA, Stanford, etc...
::There seems to be an RfC open at ]. If this is the same issue that is causing the reverts, it might be worth it for the RfC participants to ask for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC. ] (]) 21:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
:::The RfC pertains to the same issue and its 30-day period has elapsed. I'll post a message at ] asking somebody to close it. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
:@Nableezy, the only two uninvolved editors to comment on the discussion since the it's page protection, , and RfC tag, , agreed with me, here, , and here, . ] (]) 21:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:: an "uninvolved editor" said Malik's "approach to this situation is not becoming of an admin in my opinion"] (]) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:::Ancient history, Gabe. This complaint is stale. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
# (31 December 2024)
::::He is talking about the same edit war in which you made a '''revert today''', how is that stale? It only shows '''how long''' you have been warring. ] (]) 23:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
Malik seems to be threatening an ] to hold up GA status for ] in retaliation for good-faith editing I have done at '']''. He made at 16:24 (UTC), and then, , less than four minutes later. His '''second edit ever''' to ]. ] (]) 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


:Gabe, Gabe, Gabe. You've never made any good faith edits. You came to the article to of an editor who was blocked for edit warring there. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
::Well, I think what I speaks for itself. If you read all of it, and get a feel for what I was saying in a bigger picture and not focus on that one sentence. I wished I hadn't used that phrase after I typed it, as I knew it would likely confuse Mk, and it did, he missed the whole point, as have you. I can tell you it was not about '''you''', it was about '''him''', it was not personal, it had to do with a good point that could be illustrated by showing him to source and gain concensus to sway opionions versus edit warring. I was trying to convince him to make some friends, a good idea for a disruptive editor I think. ] (]) 23:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
::You should read I made to the same page one hour earlier.] (]) 23:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
::: @GabeMc: Given the book itself states "as told to" your edits/reverts are little more (if even that) than vandalism and your reporting Malik here is speaks to your conduct, not Malik's. ]<small> ►]</small> 00:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
::::@Vecrumba, have you read ''any'' of yet? I provided 182 ]s to support my arguement, Malik provided '''three'''. ] (]) 00:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
::::@Vercumba, ]—whether readers can check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."] (]) 00:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Here, are two more editors who think Malik is behaving in a way unbecoming an admin. , and . is an editor who thinks Mailk is lying about his threats to edit war.] (]) 00:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
The article in question, and the content about which there is a dispute, had been stable since creation, then Malik began a series of edits starting . ] (]) 21:48, 1 August 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 />
:Ooh, you caught me. It had been a "stable" poorly sourced stub that I rewrote, tripling its size and adding two dozen references. Since when is that a crime, Gabe? —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
::How many of your "two dozen" sources refer to Haley as a ghostwriter?
::P.S., some editions of the book say "as told to" not "with the assistance of", so it's not an author attribution is it, if it can change with the edition? ] (]) 23:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}Do you realize this is your third attempt to use a noticeboard inappropriately to resolve a content dispute? —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:19, 1 August 2010 (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) ==
:I opened a because you were using profanity and insults, a totally appropriate thing to do, where at least 4 other editors thought your behavior was unbecoming an admin, , , , and, . And now I have this Edit Warring complaint, so how did you get to three, and how are either inappropriate? This outlines how That's what you have been doing since , removing sourced edits made in a neutral narrative. ] (]) 19:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
::I think the Wikiquette alert was appropriate considering the somewhat uncivil comments, however I consider this edit warring report to be slightly dubious. I suggest this should be closed with no action. I hope Protonk's involvement will help resolve the underlying dispute. ] (]) 23:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
:::* "I consider this edit warring report to be slightly dubious"
::::Look , , , , and , then look . ] (]) 02:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::::It's not dubious, what else is there to do when someone refuses to discuss the content, yet reverts you for over a month no matter how many sources you find for your edits? ] (]) 02:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:::::1) There's plenty of discussion at ] and its archives.
# {{diff2|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
:::::2) It's dubious because it's unfounded, your diffs are stale, and you're wasting everybody's time here with a content dispute. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
# {{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"
::::::It's not stale, you reverted the same substance '''two days''' ago! Look . And I am sure, if I was the warring type, you would revery me again today. I must be missing something if an ongoing edit war is stale. ] (]) 06:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
===Closure===
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
No block, but see ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: article 1RR 2 weeks) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Gaza War}} <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|AgadaUrbanit}}


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
<!-- 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. -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
Each rv explained
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}
<!-- 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. -->
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 376224881 by ] (]) Ooops")</small> --labeled a rv
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 376358512 by ] (]) Per ]")</small>--labeled a rv
# <small>(edit summary: "Since the dispute was not resolved it is inappropriate to remove the tag. Removing the tag will not cause the dispute to disappear. Some article are special, no shame about it.")</small>--reinserts pov tag as before
# <small>(edit summary: "per Nableezy, avoid WP:WEASEL. Still without solid evidence we can not state is as fact. Sometimes reliable source claim.")</small>--reinserts "commentators claim" as in edit


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- 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 -->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: #
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- 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> <br />
<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 01:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
::Guess this is reaction to ]. Cryptonio was clearly wacky warring. Changes with Nableezy are incremental improvement effort with phrasing coined via discussion and balancing his remarks. It is sad that Nableezy prefers notice board festival to sources discussion on article ]. ] (]) 01:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
* '''Quick review:''' {{userlinks|Nableezy}}, recently banned 5 weeks (editwarring and POV pushing) from all the Israeli and Arab city articles a second time this year (See: ]), has made 3 reverts himself (00:37, 31 July -- 00:32, 1 August) and is playing the electric fence game. I see two very long bans this year and also 2 editwarring blocks (all in 2010). AgadaUrbanit, blocked once for editwarring in September 2009, on Gaza War (of all articles) and, on the face of it, has made 4 reverts. AgadaUrbanit should be again reminded that repeated reverting can easily turn into a sanction. He has a fairly clean log for almost a year, but his one block was in relation to the same article. As such, I would suggest a one week ban on him from this article which causes him to lose his calm (not very often, but still) as a reminder that if he can't work out his differences on this page without using the undo button he won't be allowed to work on it at all. As far as Nableezy goes, I figure including this article into his Israeli-Arab city ban is worthy but probably not enough to get the point across. Perhaps a two week topic ban from the entire Arab-Israeli conflict area will be a good hint that if he can't work out his differences within this topic without using the undo button he won't be allowed to work in it at all. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 03:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
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))
** Added note: I noticed this type of commentary from Cryptonio on the talkpage:<br><blockquote>Self revert this you little freckled house mouse. Final warning, and not because there are only three, but because I simply can't be here all night babysitting you. </blockquote>The editor is clearly confrontational to the point of trying to gain the upper hand by bullying his fellow editor off the page through incivility. Looking at his , I'd recommend a 48hr block. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 03:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
*:
*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


{{AN3|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for sharing, and also thanks for trying to canvass a selected admin. Oh, and there is one edit warring block in 2010, and on my second edit-warring block I later found out you had privately communicated with the blocking admin who later said he should not have blocked me. And one of my supposed "reverts" here was adding an additional source from a peer-reviewed journal article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 03:30, 1 Augusst 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
:::Jaak, every edit you have made for more than a week has been to get me banned from something or another. Would you mind terribly trying to find a new hobby? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
::::Nableezy using noticeboards to push out other editors is a common enough complaint about him. However, unless it is judged that Cryptonio was vandalizing the page (his talk page stuff makes it look like he is trolling but not sure), then AU did cross 3rr. makes it doubtful that anyone (including AU) would assume good faith. Nableezy did not cross 3rr himself but he has been reverting anything based on the term "massacre" for over a year while being unmovable to alternative methods of inclusion on the talk page if that means anything. And why is an experience user making so many reverts in a day anyways? Both should be reminded to use the talk page more and AU could be blocked for crossing a bright line while Nableezy's possible edit warring should be considered.] (]) 05:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
::::::Sorry for not being clear. Use the talk page... in an effort to establish consensus. Or to put it in a little harsher terms: not ].] (]) 06:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
OMG what a mess. Under the authority of ]:
*For persistent incivility, misuse of talk pages, and treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, {{userlinks|Cryptonio}} is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, as defined in ]. I will not entertain any appeal until a minimum of three months has elapsed, although Cryptonio retains the right to appeal to the community or arbcom at any time.
*In lieu of protection or blocks, ] is subject to a 1RR/24h parole for two weeks. Notice will be placed on talk page and given via editnotice. Everyone involved is strongly urged to resolve the issue without resorting to edit warring. The sky will not fall if a {{tl|POV}} tag remains for the time necessary to reach a consensus.
*Any future attempts to edit war will be viewed very dimly and will likely result in a lengthy break from this topic area.
] (]) 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
:Cryptonio has just violated his topic ban. I also think a 1rr is sweet and could go for even longer.] (]) 01:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
::And {{an3|b|31 hours}}. As to the 1RR, we can worry about extending it if necessary (I hope not) after or soon before it expires. ] (]) 01:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Well I disagree with extending it being unfortunate if it keeps people calm. Of course walking on eggshells is not something that this project should be about so totally get it. Anyways, is reasoning enough to limit talk page access?] (]) 02:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
::::People shouldn't have to put up with . Would it be appropriate to restrict access to his talk page for three months until he can make an appeal to the admin who made the topic ban? Shorter would be fine to but I am just going to continue to remove what looks to me like disruptive behavior and would rather not break 3rr.] (]) 05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::Restricting access to his talk page during the block, something which already been done is sufficient. If he persists after his block, he can be reblocked. -- ''']''' 08:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::Yeah that was done after I made the request. I should have mafe mention that it was resolved.] (]) 09:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


:That sounds good to me. I’m guessing he will get reverted anyway. If he reverts again, I’ll mention it here. ] (]) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Both warned) ==


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Stuart_Davis (musician)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Goethean}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
<!-- 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. -->


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
Previous version 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:


'''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 -->
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268186883|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202556|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202677|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268203165|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204621|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204745|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204943|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268205104|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268208200|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."


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


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


== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
I carefully reviewed article and edited to sourced information; article had consisted of mainly un-sourced original research and hyperbolic POV editorializing and commentary. I also found new sources and cited, adding other factual information, and added citations for facts already present but uncited. Goethean seems to have written the unsourced material, and inaccurately calling my edits "section blanking" has reverted the page 4 times now to biased version. Another editor has pointed out to him that the page is not the place for promotional material or personal opinion, and has pointed out possible ownership issues. Goethean has refused to discuss issues in talk before making edits, and is not making individual points, simply reverting whole page without providing any new sources or citations, etc. Editor has a long history of obstreperousness and contentiousness on a few different page, as evidenced by user:talk page.] (]) 05:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Result''' - Both parties warned. The four reverts listed are not within 24 hours, so there is no 3RR violation. Over the past few weeks there is a long-term edit war, between Goethean (who favors a laudatory 20Kbyte version of the article) and Tao2911, who favors a 3K version. Since the bigger version lacks extensive citations, the case remains to be proven. Please use the talk page to try to justify the respective versions during that time. Any party who continues to revert the article before getting consensus on the talk page risks a block. A ] is one way to bring in more people to a debate if those who are directly involved have no patience with each other. ] (]) 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
::Trouble with other people checking in is they are accused, by Goeathean to be socks and chills any meaningful discussions on any article with Goethan thinks he owns. This is the problem when bullies like Gotheanan are enabled by admins who don't fully understand the situation and just knee jerk.
:*Additionally, please see ]. Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Sock puppet accusation a complete red herring. Goethean himself vigorously voices his belief that I am not such. As for actual TOPIC here, Goethean still has not addressed the simple fact that all of the information he keeps re-including to article has no source support. 3 revert rule is not the only standard - if there is a clear pattern of reverting page, 24 hour rule is not the only measure by which edit warring can be gauged. Goethean needs to make case for reinclusion of individual points, that show secondary source support. This is my whole point. I should not be warned for simply maintaining the integrity of a carefully and respectfully edited page, that maintains much of the info there before, with sourced material researched and added to boot.] (]) 16:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
:And if you come back as being unrelated via the CheckUser tool, then I will apologize. I just feel there is sufficient evidence to justify and SPI case being opened. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of the race and intelligence controversy}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Victor Chmara}}
#


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Time reported:''' 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
# <small>(edit summary: "rv: what's your source for "paid advertisement"; according to Gottfredson, op-ed editor David Brooks agreed to publish it; there's a similar quote from APA report")</small> undoes revert
# <small>(edit summary: "/* 1960-1980 */ restored NPOV")</small> undoes revert
# <small>(edit summary: "/* 1980-present */ restoring sourced content")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "rv: the interview was published in Kuukausiliite, which is an affiliated but separate publication from the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat")</small> removes restored wiki-link


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


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
] started a flurry of editing on ] at 18:53, 1 August 2010. Some of these edits restored typos, added references and otherwise improved the article. On the other hand, several of the edits shifted the POV of the article. Several of these edits were reverted, and attempts were made to open a constructive dialogue: , , . Instead of discussing his proposed changes, Victor Charma took a combative position on the talk page , while admitting that he was making changes without checking sources "''I didn't have access to Winston's article. It looked like synthesis...''". Instead of actively participating in discussion, he has restored many of the reverts, and declared that his edits should stand until others take them to talk, putting the responsibility of checking and discussing sources on the shoulders of other editors, not himself. He has also falsely accused me of reverting him wholesale: .


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
It may (or may not) be worth noting that ], myself, and other users active on the talk page are actively involved in an open arbitration case related to this article.


:]
—] (]) 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
:"""
:] 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)
:: Perhaps there have been and this ought to be settled appropriately and not through yet another ANI? ]<small> ►]</small> 01:43, 2 August 2010 (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 ] 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) ==
::: Victor has started to discuss constructively, and stopped edit warring, both of which are good things. ] (]) 03:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
:::: This whole thing is ridiculous and unwarranted. I have been ready to discuss constructively from the outset, and I have not made a single edit to the article after aprock complained about my (wholly justified) reverts on my user talk page. Bizarrely, aprock decided to start this ANI process while we were in the middle of discussing the issues on the talk page. The problem was that aprock deleted lots of my sourced edits and falsely claimed that I had removed content from the article (he has admitted to his errors here). He also did not discuss his reverts beforehand on the talk page even though I had specifically asked for comments on my edits there. However, the situation seems to be okay now, and I think everybody should get back to editing articles.--] (]) 05:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
:::::I notice that Aprock filed this report only 38 minutes after warning Victor Chmara about edit warring on his userpage, even though Victor Chmara did not revert the article again after Aprock’s warning. I also see from ] about these edits that Victor was attempting to discuss Aprock’s reverts with him, and that Aprock himself admitted there that he was failing to clearly justify them: “I'm just on a very small laptop, which makes the comparisons difficult when the diff goes awry (as they appear to have done). So yes, I do admit that I didn't read those diffs correctly, and I again apologize…” (and in another comment) “I misread the original edit. I did not see that the red text had been replicated below the references you added. My apologies.”


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:::::If I’m to assume good faith about this report, which is difficult, the best I can assume about it is that it was a mistake. Reports for edit warring are meant to be for dealing with editors who are aggressively adding or removing material instead of engaging in discussion about it. They should not be made by an editor who (by his own admission) is '''himself''' failing to justify his edits, as a substitute for discussion with other editors who are trying to engage in it. --] (]) 10:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Both users edit warring, article protected) ==
# {{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:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Bumin Qaghan}}
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|CenkX}}
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Time reported:''' 03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
He/She removed information with ]. Thank you. ] (]) 09:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
*Both users were edit warring. I'm not going to take sides on the underlying content dispute, but the right answer is not to continue to revert. Because this report is stale, I won't block either party (and recommend against anyone else blocking) but I have protected the page for three days. ''Try'' and hash things out on the talk page. If you cannot come to an agreement, seek a third opinion or some other avenue for dispute resolution. ] (]) 23:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Susan B. Anthony List}} <br />
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Binksternet}}
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"


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


<!-- 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: ] '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User continues to add ridiculous and biased information. He insists on using the term "Academic history experts" to describe pro-choice authors and uses a citation from a biased pro-choice source to try to prove their "expertise". User at the ] page and was rebuked. The edit war has been going on for several days now. User has a history of edit warring as evidenced by his talk page. Please advise. ] (]) 13:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:This report appears to me to be the wrong venue for the concerns of BS24. There is no edit warring involved—I added things, I changed things and I discussed both wording and sources on the talk page. BS24 visited the talk page only once about the choice between calling angry Anthony scholars "pro-choicers" (BS24 wording) or "academic history experts" (). Discussion is still open, still in progress. ] (]) 14:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
== ] Reported by ] (Result:) ==


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Musashi miyamoto}} and {{iplinks|92.10.208.209}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
1st Revert


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
2nd


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
3rd


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


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
] and and then ] is ] like a Sleeper account. ] (]) 22:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


'''Note:''' IP had previous edited in a 3RR ] ] (]) 22:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
*My first question is, why are you using rollback in an edit war? Is the disputed content vandalism? ] (]) 23:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
:: I consider, going way against consensus to repeatedly add content is vandalism in my book. ] (]) 23:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Ok. Well I consider what is under ] to ''not'' be vandalism. Which specifically includes adding content against consensus. My second question is, why was there not an attempt to come to a compromise with a shortened section covering the disputed materials? ] (]) 23:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
:::: ] moment here It occurred after i posted i'd better check ], Any mention of such material is unnecessary. One Family of 5 people is a major violation of WP:UNDUE in a population of 249,000 Amish people in the united states. ] (]) 23:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::I'll leave it to local editors to determine whether or not any mention is necessary, but my suggestion is that discussion and compromise are almost always preferred over blocking and protecting. As for the ROLLBACK/VAND#NOT issues, I don't think it will hit you too hard. :) I just want you to be mindful of when and where you use rollback--rollback is a specialized tool which can be easily used and misused. I'll look into what to do about the article, but my preference is discussion, protection and blocking in that order. ] (]) 23:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::: We had a discussion with the Editor on the talk page (s)he refuses to listen. ] (]) 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::] Contains three seperate editors spelling out how it violates policy ] (]) 00:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
:{{od}}I see that discussion on the talk page. I'm not convinced it "violates" policy, as that implies an action against, rather than a preference (which is what UNDUE effectively is). Tell you what, if the material gets inserted again by an account attached to this IP (not 100% sure the named account is a sleeper, but about 70% sure) then I'll block the account and the IP. ] (]) 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours ) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Catholic sex abuse cases}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sturunner}}


Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Time reported:''' 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''
*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)
#
#
#
# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by ] identified as ] to last revision by ]. (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Inaccuracies */ deleted ] section. Jenkins has NEVER published ANYTHING in a scholarly publication on these issues, He is simply an apologist for bishops' covering-up the the transfer of serial child rapists.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by ]; Keep trying--you "WP' trolls have a pro-pedophilia bias, & it is being exposed as we speak. . (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted to revision 376702859 by ]; I will always remember to only quote ] in the future. You are just absurd.. (])")</small>


== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
* Diff of warning:
* and
* and


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
'''Comments'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}
User is also edit warring on a number of other similar articles and has been warned elsewhere numerous times. His edit warring also goes back further than listed above.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
—<div>]<p style="margin:3px 5px 0 5px;float:left;font-variant:small-caps"><sub>]</sub><br/><sub>]</sub></p></div> 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
# "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)"


*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] <sup>]</sup> 06:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Audi}}
# "Lady Saso: New Section"
# "Lady Saso: Reply"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|74.101.108.117}}
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.


Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
'''Time reported:''' 02:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in 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.
First edit: <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
:together with <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
: and <small>(edit summary: "")</small>


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 ].
Second edit: <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
:together with <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
:and <small>(edit summary: "")</small>


Third edit: <small>(edit summary: "")</small> '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Fourth edit: <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:together with <small>(edit summary: "")</small>

* Diff of warning: . Please also see the discussion with this contributor on my talk page .

—Thank you, ] (]) 02:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: both blocked 36h) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Peter Sichrovsky}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Dodo19}}

<!-- 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: (note the personal assault in his edit summary! baselessly accusing me of ])
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert: (note that he wrongly accused me of ] in his edit summary)
* 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (he reverted 4th time a few minutes before I managed to post it, but he <u>was aware of 3RR and '''wantonly''' broke this</u> since earlier today, he himself a 3 RR warning.


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

Please block him for impudent 3 RR violation and vile accusations of ] against me, where there was no racism. (] is a Jewish politician of the controversial ]. Some believe they are using his Jewish origin to 'pacify' the potentially critical Jewish electorate).

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

The user has been ] me since today, when I edited the page ] (he reverted me '''3''' times there, too! , , ). That's how he found the page on ]. I reverted him 2 times at Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt, but gave up, waiting for more opinions by others. Based on serious arguments I had found on talk page, in my opinion I removed the political . I am waiting for more opinions at talk, having from a constructive user, who has commented on the issue before (Dodo19 has been edit warring there since ], pushing the theories from obviously biased or even fringe authors). In my opinion, Dodo19 belongs to that group of authors from German Misplaced Pages, who believe they are entitled to censor everything from the ']' left-wing POV, which more often than not leads them to violations of ] and ]. ] ] 13:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have informed him on that . ] ] 13:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
:{{AN3|bb|thirty-six hours}} -- ''']''' 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

== edit warring at ] over makers website of device ==

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

'''Page:''' ] <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|222.125.199.240}}

And many other anonymous users (sock-puppets ?)

<!-- 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:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
and so on and so on.

<!-- 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>There seems to be an edit war going on (in which I have no stake and have not contributed) on whether the ] (handheld game system) is made in Hong-kong, or mainland China.</u> <br />

The object of the edit war is to change the link to the "official website" to one or the others websites. It has going on for a long time, between many different anonymous users.
I asked the contributors of the edit war to stop edit warring, and discuss the case on the talk page, but this was ignored, and the edit war continues unabated.

] (]) 13:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Cure}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Alessandr79}}

<!-- 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:
* 5th revert:
* 6th 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 user has also been warned regarding the repeated addition of spam links on his/her talk page: and again following the most recent revert . --] (]) 16:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Popular Front of India}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Asik5678}}

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

:He has also been doing the same on the article for ].

**
**
**

:I opened up a on the talk page after the first time he put the info in the article to discuss if some of the info can be put in, if references can be found. I also him about it, but he gave no response and continued to add in the information, as shown in the links I gave above. After we kept reverting it, he just went to the Popular Front of India page, as the nom showed, and other articles to make changes there, mainly redirects. In some of these, I would have assumed good faith, but the lack of discussion on the part of the user when they have been notified time and again shows that this is very likely just a vandal. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|one week}} He has been blocked by another admin. I just want to remind you that rollback is not supposed to be used except in cases of vandalism. You kinda crossed into a grey area using it here. -- ''']''' 10:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Military history of China (pre-1911)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Teeninvestor}}

Edit-warring despite ongoing ANI and RFC/U:

<!-- 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. -->

<!-- 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. -->
:*Edits by Arnoutf: (20:51, 2 August 2010)
* 1st revert by Teeninvestor:
:* 1st revert by Athenean:
* 2nd revert by Teeninvestor:
:* 1st revert by Arnoutf:
* 3rd revert by Teeninvestor:
:* 2nd revert by Arnoutf:
* 4th revert by Teeninvestor: (20:13, 3 August 2010)
:* Edit by Gun Powder Ma:
*5th revert by Teeninvestor: (21:41, 3 August 2010)

<!-- 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>Comment on how to read diffs:</u> <br />
Teeninvestor's 1st to 4th revert refer to the paragraphs containing these quotes:
:*''By the time of the Ming, gunpowder weapons were so ubitiqious that a battalion in the fifteenth century Chinese army had...'' (only slightly reworded in 4th revert)
:*''The Song Dynasty's official military texts described the crossbow thus...''
:*''The use of the crossbow is also described...''
His 5th revert refers to my edit, the paragraph beginning with
:*''However, in the conquest of China, the Mongols also adopted gunpowder weapons and thousands of Chinese infantry and naval forces into the Mongol army..''

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see ongoing ANI (started 00:38, 3 August 2010) below

<!-- 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 ongoing ANI (started 00:38, 3 August 2010) below

<u>Comments:</u> Teeninvestor has breached the 3rr, although he is fully aware that his edit pattern on the article is currently subject of ]. Teeninvestor's edit behaviour is also currently subject of a ], and was recently of another . A more complete account of the dimension of the problem with the editor's behaviour is given by ]. ] (]) 22:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC) <br />

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:GPM's portrayal of the above edits are completely fallacious. This user has been ignoring the ] of the article, in which I was constructively discussing issues with fellow editors and . He also counts an addition of info as a revert , . He has misrepresented greatly the series of edits that went on here. The first three diffs were removals of POV and copyright violations which another editor (User:Arnoutf) mistakenly reinserted and reverting removal of quotes which he thought was not attributed. When I , he acknowledged this and stopped reverting, as shown . The fourth "revert" consists of me reintroducing material that Arnoutf objected to it in quote form, but had no objections in paragraph form; hardly a revert. The fifth "revert" is an even bigger representation, as I merely modified the quote because said editor was misrepresenting his source. This user has been disruptively forum shopping after getting negative replies by trying to discredit Robert Temple, a known sinologist, as shown and , after his disruptive POV edits were rejected by other editors besides myself. and . This disruptive forum shopping and misrepresentation of other editors need to be stopped.] (]) 23:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

::I endorse this report. The edit history of ] says it all. Teeninvestor seems to display strong WP:OWN behavior. He has embarked on unilaterally re-writing the article, while at the same time taking it upon himself to police every single edit by other users. This has brought him in conflict with multiple editors, and resulted in him reaching and breaching 3RR so many times in the last few days that I have lost count. His claims that he constructively discusses things in the talkpage is disingenuous, with this as a particularly egregious counterexample. He feigns consensus, then re-adds the disputed material when he thinks no one is watching, edit wars over it, and then taunts me , and in textbook example of ], accuses ''me'' of POV-pushing . For the record, I have little interest in this article, I am mostly goaded by Teeninvestor's intrasigent, WP:OWN behavior. ] (]) 02:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Charles County, Maryland}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Tedickey}}

<!-- 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:
* 5th 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:
* My Warning:
* Another editors warning(NOT 3RR):

<!-- 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: No need for a diff:
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
<u>Comments:</u> <br />

For the record, User has and subsequently deleted the 3rr notification] (]) 08:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}} It's been about two days since the edit war was going on. Will try to keep an eye on it, though. I have removed Daven's rollback rights, though, due to his use of them in an edit war. -- ''']''' 10:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
::Just curious but what is the rationale for admin inactivity in this case? I am not sure whether it has occurred to the admin that stale verdict in general actually favours the user who is more willing to revert, since it is his version which prevails, and that the other, more cautious user who deliberately restrained himself from taking things too far is actually punished for exactly his restraint. I believe the unwanted lesson from stale is that one needs to continue to revert even beyond 3rr so that the admin does not forget to take action. Pretty counter-productive this stale in that it fuels edit-warring. ] (]) 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
*I'd like to challenge this verdict because at the time of reporting the edit war was still in progress but the report simply sat on the page and the war cooled down however this verdict doesn't solve anything it just creates a larger tension about the subject.] (]) 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
:Couldn't agree more. Stale is like waiting inactively until the house has burnt down and then pointing out that there is no need for firemen anymore. ] (]) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
:Excuse me? Dave reported this, as the timestamp shows, at 8:55 this morning. It was stale when he reported it, and stale an hour and a half later when I fulfilled the request. And, no, it's not like waiting until a house a burned down. We are a bunch of volunteers; no one's life is on the line, and we don't let requests sit here just for our amusement. -- ''']''' 22:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
::Ok, I missed the time gap. I was under the impression that "stale" means that there was no edit-warring after the report was filed: because this rarely indicates that problems were solved meanwhile, but rather that one side sits back and awaits an admin reaction. ] (]) 22:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Your excused.I did not report this at 8:55 this morning (I was simply adding more evidence) I reported it a 23:08 UTC and it was answered 11 hours and 18 minutes later. I wholeheartedly agree with Gun Powder Ma and his brilliant analogy of how this case has been neglected and in a final act of disrespect labeled as stale. Its an injustice and no one should have to be treated in such a harsh and cruel manner. ] (]) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
::::Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. If the edit war is no longer going on, a block won't prevent anything. Blocks aren't given to punish past behavior, only to prevent ongoing behavior. ] (]) 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::No one in this report has mentioned blocks up until now. Blocks are not the only solution that can come out of this report. Besides, one needs to wait over 11 hours to actually get an admin to notice so its basically impossible at times to achieve a "Preventive" block on this noticeboard. ] (]) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::Fine. Then it took 11 hours until this was addressed. But it took you 30+ hours to bring this to the noticeboard (at which point, by the way, it was -- again -- already stale). That's what happens on a volunteer project. -- ''']''' 23:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
::::Yworo, there is a logical fallacy in your reasoning. Remember that in a one on one edit war, even the more moderate side will have reached at least 3 reverts at the point the other has broken 3rr. So if the admins are still unwilling to take action at this point, they put the more reasonable user at a dilemma: if he keeps by the rules and stops reverting, the edit warrior will have saved his version, and thus he and his revert-style has 'won'. But if he continues to revert to prevent that, he will commit a 3rr himself. So, admin inactivity is clearly inducing a situation in which either no action is taken at all (3/4), or against both users simultaneously (4/4 and more). This is hardly ideal and actually creates favourable conditions for the more reckless reverters. ] (]) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::Posts like these never cease to amaze me. Your definition of "moderate side" and "reasonable user" is the one who reverts second. The one who starts the edit war is an edit warrior. The one who is so generous and honorable to defend the article, Misplaced Pages, and the world by continuously reverting the person who started the edit war is also an edit warrior. It doesn't matter that our gracious defender might only have three reverts, while our aggressive and stupid offender has made four. They both are equally culpable, and they both should be treated equally. The point of the 3RR and our edit-warring policies is to convey that disputes should not be resolved by continuous reverting. You, however, seem to think disputes are resolved (or, "won", as you put it) by reverting over and over. So, no, there's no logical fallacy; you just don't understand the meaning of edit warring. Please re-read ] as ignorance of the rules, having been pointed to them, is no defense. -- ''']''' 23:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hussein al-Yemeni}}

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Bllasae}}

'''Time reported:''' 03:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

#
#
#
#

Discussion on the ] was attempted but proved fruitless. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Bryan Fowler}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|71.97.210.117}}

<!-- 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: not by the same IP address

<!-- 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: Yes, I was unnecessarily short with the first comment. It's unlikely to be read anyway as it's an IP address, not a user.

<!-- 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 above link

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
This will likely continue to be reverted by multiple IP addresses as long as it sits on . I imagine that website has to be a headache for admins here. --] (]) 14:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

:I've semi-protected the page and blocked one of the IPs for vandalism as a bonus. Thanks. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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: