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

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:46, 15 August 2010 editCptnono (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,588 edits →User:AgadaUrbanit reported by User:Nableezy (Result: )← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,722 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 = ~~138~~		\|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' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for 1 week) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Attila}} (and {{pagelinks\|Turanid}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Finn Diesel}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	F.D. was already blocked three times for revert-warring over this same article (in fairness, note that the second of the three recent blocks in his log was partly in error, cf. ], but the revert-warring charge is pertinent). Returned immediately after his block, continuing the exact same reverts against consensus of multiple other users. This is exacerbated by the fact that he blanket-reverts irrespective of multiple unrelated intermediate edits, without ever discussing any objection to anything except one aspect (image use). Conduct on talk page shows he is utterly incapable of engaging in a constructive dialogue on this matter and simply doesn't "get" what others are saying.
	*
	*
	*
	*
	* Probably also this sock IP: (see for explanation of evidence)
	Warnings since latest block: ,

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Also now edit-warring at ], using fake sources .
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	I request a lengthy block and/or topic ban (possibly indefinite) under ]. See earlier report at ]. ] ] 09:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|1 week}} Future Perfect, I'm not going to treat this as an arbitration enforcement action, please file at ] if you wish, but this block is explicitly for the 3RR and only the 3RR. ] 09:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected for one week) ==

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Racism in association football}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Monkeymanman}}

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	Previous version reverted to:
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	<!-- 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. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	* 4th revert:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}
	* 3rd revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 1st revert:

			'''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:~~		# (31 December 2024)
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	<!-- 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 />

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	An editor in clear breach of 3RR here. Perhaps more worryingly, he or she is refusing to ] and insists that additions from a particular user are ''de facto'' "bad faith" or "pov". He or she is now repeatedly deleting them apparently without even examining them. I would note this editor has caused problems for other editors at the same article before and has been warned for edit warring in the recent past Personally, I have made genuine attempts to discuss content on the talk page, which has only been met with ad hominems. ] (]) 12:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
	:Okay where do I start. This user has used IP addresses ], ], ], ],], ], and has an editing history of adding controversial, dubious and potentially damaging material onto peoples BLP’s across Misplaced Pages. He has been warned before and . With previous block . The user stated that he would comply with the rules after his block but has gone straight back to editing in the same manner. He has now received numerous warnings . I have given the user plenty of opportunities to open dispute res about this and every other edit that they have made recently but they have refused. I would welcome someone to review this users editing history of the material they have been adding to articles and the numerous experienced editors (I do not include myself in that) that have rejected the inclusions on various grounds. ] (]) 12:57, 13 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 />
	*This user the IP is operating from multiple IP addresses and was recently blocked for policy violations, he is edit warring at multiple articles and is the subject of at least two recent threads at the BLPN. The user is adding controversial content at multiple articles most of it with a strong POV against the subjects, most of which is flagged as possible violations by bots. Myself and Monkey and another couple of users have been attempting to discuss the issue with him without any success and multiple experienced editors have been reverting the IP at multiple locations. ] (]) 13:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*"Controversial" maybe but always neutrally worded and attributed to a reliable source. Whatever you and other involved parties have been "attempting to discuss" it isn't content. Anyway, this report does not relate to the validity of my additions at ] or elsewhere (though I stand by them). It relates to this clear and conspicuous breach of 3RR. ] (]) 13:32, 13 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) ==
	::*All of your additions are controversial, and all of them are being reverted by multiple experienced editors. This report is actually about you are your disruption at multiple locations, this report is just a point on that disruptive path that you are on. I also notice that you didn't even give monkey his warning until after he made the last revert. ] (]) 14:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	{{AN3\|p}} Use ], not reverts please. --] ] 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	Every single edit he has made has been controversial. He is only on here to wind people up (although he'll deny it). He has never contributed anything positive to wikipedia. It would be nice if he'd admit that rather than carrying on with this act of his and acting innocent when anyone complains about him. ] (]) 19:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:Perhaps, but that is a topic for a different noticeboard. --] ] 19:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: 24h block) ==
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
			# {{diff2\|1268002110\|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
			# {{diff2\|1267995715\|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267994453\|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008)}}
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Whether There's Weather Underground}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''Time reported:''' 16:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	Editor, has been edit warring against at least 3 others to re-open a discussion closed on ] grounds speculating into the sexuality of a judge. The BLP harm is that editors working on this active article, seeing the discussion, believe unconfirmed rumors that the judge is in fact gay, and obviously inaccurate claims that he is "openly gay". The new editor is an apparent ] originally created to insert "terrorist" into the ] article, and does not seem to have made any productive contributions to the encyclopedia. - ] (]) 16:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* Revert comparison ("compare"): ().

	''Diffs ~~are~~ ~~listed~~ ~~from~~ ~~oldest to newest, dates are in UTC~~''		'''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:'''
	# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Judge Walker openly gay */")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "No, it's not.")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Judge Walker openly gay */")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "Cut that out. You don't get to lie and claim "consensus" when there isn't, and your tactics of trying to "close" the debate when discussion is still ongoing are dishonest at best.")</small>
	# (after report filed)

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
			Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
			*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
			:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
			*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
			*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
			*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
			*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
			*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
			*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
			*:
			*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
			*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			{{AN3\|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} --] ] 16:42, 13 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: Page protected for one week) ==

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	{{archive top}}

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Criticism~~ of ~~YouTube~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sceptre}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	<!-- 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:		'''Previous version 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. -->
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268186285\|diff=1268208200\|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	# <small>(edit summary: "if that counts as proper sourcing then David Cameron is a secret Trotskyist who has gay sex with Nick Clegg all night long")</small>
			## {{diff2\|1268186883\|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Animal Abuse */ "breathing air has been critcised by the carbon monoxide society"; that is, don't say that people are criticising something when it's fucking obvious they would do")</small>
			## {{diff2\|1268202556\|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
	# <small>(edit summary: "] edits by ] (]) to last version by Sceptre")</small>
			## {{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:'''
	=
			# {{diff2\|1268160425\|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1268160707\|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user has jumped in without bothering to go to the talk page and looking at he edit history feels he owns the page. I also draw attention to his inappropriate comments in his reversions.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	] (]) 04:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

	*Two reverts, not even close to breaking 3RR. Please note complainant has been for edit-warring on this article. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 04:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:: It take two to edit war sonny. I am restoring properly sourced material. You are the one who jumped into edit war. Your politically biased rationale at ANI explains all. ] (]) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
			#

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	::: just to note. the editor Sceptre has continued to edit war even after I filed this report. I rest my case. He has removed a whole section which was properly sourced. ] (]) 04:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	::::Ummm... YouTube and the other sites you're sourcing aren't reliable sources. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Ummm.. Some videos at YouTube are acceptable. The ones in question may or may not be but it is best to not make such a broad statement when there is already confusion.] (]) 05:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Yes, but very few. Only videos for partner channels of already reliable sources (such as, say, CNN) are reliable. YouTube is unreliable by default. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::You were doing fine until "YouTube is unreliable by default." It is those sort of statements that have caused confusion throughout the community.] (]) 05:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Oh, sorry I didn't make it clearer. He's citing some user's page and a search query (I had looked at it when this issue was first brought up). ]<sup>]</sup> 05:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::...But it ''is''. YouTube videos, by and large, fail the guidelines at ]. Even a lot of partner channels do that. It's not wrong to suggest a website where 99.99999% of the content posted is inadmissable as a reliable source is unreliable by default. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 05:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::No worries, Netalarm. I assumed as much. I am just extra pissy about statements like that since for over a year I assumed it was no good EVER and then found out it wasn't. I even wrote an essay. Not the best place for an overall discussion on it anyways so oops on my end. And use "many" or "most" instead of blanket statements next time Sceptre. ] (]) 05:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	{{AN3\|p}} The talk page is ]. --] ] 04:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	:: Thanks Chris. hopefully this Sceptre kid guy will see it. ] (]) 04:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	::: See what? That you insist on introducing policy-violating, anti-semitic bullshit that others have to clean up? ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::: The user ''']'' is clearly an anti-social and hateful editor by spewing this bile like 'anti-semitic bullshit'. I won't lower myself to respond to it this hate talk. Misplaced Pages should be above this kind of thing. I leave administrators to deal with editors like him. ] (]) 05:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	On the ] this IP is repeatedly adding nonsensical information which had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Despite the intervention and suggestion of another editor, with whom I agree but nothing yet has been done, he persists in reverting my logical restorations and calling it vandalism. This I deem to be a personal attack. He won't engage any constructive discussion, bar this post made on my talk page –unless of course his version remains in while discussion remains on going. I would appreciate some assistance. ] (]) 11:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	'''Result''' - Cautioned submitter. The IP seems to believe you* should be required to discuss, while he himself has never been to the talk page. Even so, nothing prevents you from starting the discussion. Please don't in the move log. Consider opening a discussion at ] to see if your idea for renaming this article is widely supported. Otherwise your move of the ] article to ] could be seen as a way of continuing your content dispute with the IP by other means. You could leave a neutral message at ] asking other editors to give their opinion on the proper scope of this article, and whether the uses of 'blitzkrieg' in cancer research merit inclusion. ] (]) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	::You haven’t made any sense. If I have a problem with an article, the onus is on me to make the approach. He should discuss first. Thanks for wasting my time, legitimising poor edits, and allowing an anon to make a mockery of a serious article. There already exists a disambiguation page for other uses of the term. Perhaps you should have looked a little harder. ] (]) 23:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

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

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Mikheil Saakashvili}} <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|John Shalikashvili}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Kober}}

			There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the 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. -->
	; Mikheil Saakashvili
	Previous version reverted to:

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	<!-- 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 edit - massive taging:

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

			: NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ] (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. ] (]) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
			::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
	* 2nd revert:
			::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
	* 3rd edit - Speedy request and blanking of redirect
			::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
	<!-- 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 -->
			::"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) ==
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	<s>Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: <s> The initial edit war was between {{User\|Russavia}} and Kober. I have not interacted with Kober, except for the talk page discussions listed above.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	<!-- 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: ,

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	This is not a case of 3RR and I am not asking for a block. However, I feel that this case might fall under ] and I ask the user be given a DIGWUREN warning as listed here: ] – The user has not been previously warned although his edit history shows a pattern of aggressive edit warring in articles falling under the DIGWUREN remedies. Also, in this case I '''feel''' that my edits on unrelated pages may have been ]ed and targeted for revert as punishment for restoring content that the user ]. -- ] (]) 14:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
	:Without voicing any opinion on the merits of the given edits, some of the talk page posts sound unnecessarily aggressive and provoking, something that we really don't need in this topic area. Thus I think it is a good idea to notify the user of the sanctions, and so it is . ] (]) 07:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected for two weeks) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Israel-South Africa relations}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1268291574\|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
	'''Severino:''' {{userlinks\|Severino}}
			# {{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:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- 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:
	* 7th revert:
	* 8th revert:
	* 9th revert:
	* 10th revert:
	* 11th revert:
	* 12th revert:
	* 13th revert:
	* 14th revert:
	* 15th revert:

			:'''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)
	<!-- 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 -->

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			:And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. ] (]) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			: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) ==
	My problem is that Severino has a clear political agenda. He is attempting to single out Israel amongst other nations that had good relations with South Africa, like US, UK, France, etc. by dividing the article into "Relations with apartheid South Africa" and "post-apartheid," even tho this isn't how the US, Australia, Canada, Germany articles on SA relations are divided, even tho they were generally on good terms with apartheid-era South Africa, nor is this how other pages are divided with countries that didn't have good relations with apartheid South Africa. I have simply tried to make the article fair. The US is widely seen to even have propped up the regime or helped give it some legitimacy. France and the UK are also known to have helped armed it militarily, yet there are no articles dedicated to that. Severino keeps reverting to promote there ALLEGATION WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN that Israel offered SA nukes, and when articles are added which don't add to this tale, he deletes them, dismissing them as "blogs," even tho . His edits are in bad faith, and his other recent edits show his history of POV and agenda pushing. I suggest something be done.] (]) 19:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	*{{AN3\|p}} Both sides have been actively edit warring over this page for a long time, therefore I have protected the page for two weeks. Both participants are advised to follow the ] cycle. --] ] 19:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	the hypocritical applicant deserves to be reported here. it's clearly him who has a (hysterical nationalist) political agenda which he pursues here, to the disadvantage of wikipedia (which can be seen by his edit history). i already adviced him several times that he is free to change the article about US-SA relations, also dividing it into apartheid and post apartheid era. instead of doing so, he keeps on vandalizing the article about IL SA relations. i don't want to write too much about the topic here although it's clear for informed persons without blinders that israel has played a special role in supporting the south african apartheid regime (something which is NOT reflected by dividing the history of relations into apartheid and post apartheid, by the way! SAs foreign policy in regard to allmost all countries changed with the end of apartheid so it makes sense to reflect that in these artcles). i've inserted referenced information about that which Tallicfan20 has deleted immediately..he also inserts information which is referenced only by a blog which is against wikipedia policy. it can't be the purpose of wikipedia to erase and omit facts which can be interpreted to the disadvantage of a country or collective, and those which only some special "user" interprete this way (the more so as this user has no problem to denounce other collectives, on the contraray).tallicfan keeps on bashing with personal attacks like in the edit comment and in the comment above. i welcome the protection of the article to stop tallicfans edit warring but indicate to the saved insertion of a blog information and tallicfans behaviour in general..--] (]) 06:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: Page protected for one week) ==

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Jimmy McDaniels}}


	'''Time reported:''' 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Salon article removal */ Discuss it on the talk page. As I stated previously, this 8 year old article is still available via Lexis from Salon")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Career */")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 378787657 by ] (]) Like everyone else, including me, you can take it to the talk page and discuss it there] (]) 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "actually, you're wrong. Jill Stewart has her own wikipedia page. She's quite prominent. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Jill_Stewart I will link to her")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* California Energy Crisis */ link fixed")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Career */ added kurtz. It's relevant that the author of the story is also featured in the book by his own admission. Readers deserve to know that")</small>

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
	* Note that ] previously edited as {{vandal\|76.246.156.86}}. Check the talk page, he has <strike>two</strike> <strike>three</strike> four formal 3RR warnings, numerous other warnings, and multiple final warnings. Both the IP and the user have been previously blocked.
	—] (]) 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	:Jimmy was also by the admin who unblocked him early from his last block. ] (]) 19:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	*{{AN3\|p}} No 3RR violation, but definitely edit warring. Please use the talk page and follow the ] process. --] ] 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected for one week) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Jason Leopold}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1268346980\|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
	'''User:''' {{userlinks\|Yworo}}
			# {{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:'''
	As you can see, Yworo is accusing me of being Jason Leopold. He offers up no evidence. Apparently, someone who is passionate about something is automatically deemed to be the subject. This false allegation only serves to underscore my point that this person should not be involved in editing this article. Yworo, since you're supposed to be working in the world of facts and sources, find a source that proves I'm Jason Leopold. Until then, keep your claims to yourself. I am using my real name for transparency. Should I accuse you of being Howard Kurtz maybe?

	And as I said on my own talk page, I went to Amazon.com and looked inside Leopold's book using the "look inside" feature and found the Kurtz reference, which is criticism. I then have been working to find a source to cite that has this material. I've read the edit warring and I am just stunned that Yworo appears to have difficulty adhering to his own advice, which can be proven by looking at the edit history and the comments he/she has left on the talk page and my talk page. Yworo's comments are not that of an unbiased editor but rather someone who have a personal issue. Accusing me of being the subject of the article is a perfect example. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* (cur \| prev) 19:31, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk \| contribs) (17,698 bytes) (Undid revision 378907882 by Yworo (talk) self-revert and tag for verification) (undo)
	* (cur \| prev) 18:00, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk \| contribs) (17,557 bytes) (Undid revision 378905170 by Jimmy McDaniels (talk) you still haven't sourced that fact) (undo)

	# (cur \| prev) 07:13, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk \| contribs) (17,079 bytes) (→California Energy Crisis: neither link in this "reference" works, remove) (undo)
	# (cur \| prev) 07:05, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk \| contribs) (17,581 bytes) (→Career: quote the report rather than inaccurately summarize it) (undo)
	# (cur \| prev) 06:49, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk \| contribs) (17,383 bytes) (→Career: this bit is unsourced) (undo) ] (]) 19:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	====Refutation====
	:I've made only three unbroken series of edits to {{article\|Jason Leopold}} in the last 24 hours:
	#
	#
	#

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	And I the third to allow Jimmy to show that the source given verifies the last statememt preceeding it. This is simply a retaliatory report and an attempt to excuse his 6 reverts in the last 24 hours. ] (]) 19:41, 14 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)
	*{{AN3\|p}} No 3RR violation, but definitely edit warring. Please use the talk page and follow the ] process. --] ] 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
			*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:That is because {{u\|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			:{{u\|Shecose}}, {{tqq\|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Gaza War}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|AgadaUrbanit}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	<!-- 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\|Ger2024}}

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

	<!-- 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:

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			#: "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."
	The page is under a 1RR as posted by an ] on the article. AgadaUrbanit received a 24 hr block for violating that, then performed a large number of reverts in the 24 hourse after that block and was blocked for a week. Today, Agada waited 24 hours and 21 minutes to make the 2nd revert. This 1 day after the 1 week block expired.
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
	<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 07:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"
	:Both of them. Nableezy made plenty of reverts since this article went to 1/rr. So forgetting all of the edit warring he did previously on the exact same line, since August 1st:

	:* note that it is a revert to AgadaUrbanit
			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	:* note that it is a revert to AgadaUrbanit
	:*		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.
	:* note that it is a :revert to AgadaUrbanit

	:3/rr is not an entitlement and 1/rr is certainly not. Block them both.] (]) 07:46, 15 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).

			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 ] 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 ].

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

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(31 December 2024)
(6 January 2024)
(7 January 2025)
(8 January 2025)

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

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

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

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

I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--BubbleBabis (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating hoaxes, adding off-topic information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368#User BubbleBabis. Aneirinn (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

Comment: This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .

PS: Their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. Garuda 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.

“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”

wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.

“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”

Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself

“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”

The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?

Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.

It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

They have been warned before about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at Huddersfield sex abuse ring, you may be blocked from editing. FoxtAl (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

They're up to it again NotQualified (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

""" NotQualified (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_September_2024 (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."

Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of Reform UK abuse scandal, amongst other things. James McMurdock#Assault conviction

Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.

"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE."

Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.

"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_September_2024"

Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.

"I "tried to delete me reporting them""

I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.

"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"

3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with NotQualified (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

No violation. This report is a mess. Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment NotQualified (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@NotQualified: Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. NotQualified (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
I add templates to an article with faults

The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level

I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line

They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.

I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.

Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case

I notify the user

I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy

Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level

You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem

I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis NotQualified (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."

That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.

I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.

I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. NotQualified (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.

And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. MrOllie (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at Genome-wide association study, not one as you claim. MrOllie (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. MrOllie (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article 'heritability of IQ' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours —C.Fred (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

Shecose, to satisfy his personal ego (above and in Special:Diff/1268349248 too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: