Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:28, 7 December 2011 editDe728631 (talk | contribs)56,510 edits →User:Sarsathug and User:Vikas.insan reported by User:De728631 (Result: Block): comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:20, 10 January 2025 edit undoJauerback (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators72,574 edits →User:Sillypickle123 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: ): blocked 
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 = 174 |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>
}}
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
</noinclude>
{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}<noinclude>
__TOC__</noinclude>
<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
<!-- dummy edit -->


== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) == == ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2011 attack on the British Embassy in Iran}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.78.79.156}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
<!-- 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:'''
<!-- 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:
<!-- 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. -->
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{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:'''
<!-- 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 />
This IP user is edit warring by insisting on including the reactions of Kosovo and Albania to this diplomatic incident, against the wishes of multiple editors. The user argues that "every international entity has its own importance." Yes, we understand that under international law all states are juridically equal but it has nothing to do with the relevant Misplaced Pages policies for inclusion of material in this case: ] and ]. The RS issue is that the IP's sources are principally self-published government sources and not reliable international media sources. Secondly, it is terribly undue to include the reactions of two states that had no connection whatsoever to this incident. If we extended the IP users logic and included the reaction of all states worldwide, it would naturally be a mess. ] (]) 17:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:I've notified the IP editor that they are being discussed here. Let's wait and see if there is a response. There are many contributions to this article by good-faith IPs so semiprotection might not be wise. There is already a talk thread about whether the positions of Albania and Kosovo are important enough to include. If you can't get the IP to join in discussion on the talk page, then editors might consider removing the excessive material from the article. ] (]) 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Result:'''' No action. The IP has not edited the article since 3 December so imposing a sanction at this time would not make sense. Editors who are confident that consensus has been reached on the talk page about the Albania and Kosovo paragraphs are welcome to act in accordance with that. The IP made no response to my reminder about this 3RR. If edit warring flares up again, report it. ] (]) 04:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: No action for now) ==


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Amazing Kornyfone Record Label}} <br />
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Flyspes}}


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert: (editing as ]
* 2nd revert: (editing as ]
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert: (editing as ]


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


<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Flyspes seems to believe that his own original research belongs in the article, even though he cannot provide a reliable source. ] (]) 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|comment}} I'm not questioning that Flyspes was edit warring but I did want to let the deciding admin know that there is a calm conversation going on at both ] and my own ]. I began talking to Flyspes after seeing part of their first conversation ] from MikeWazowski's talkpage. The level of frustration and confusion seemed pretty high so I began talking to Flyspes to help them understand the situation. ] (]) 14:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
I think its only fair that I try to give my side of the story.Adding the labels discography to the general information about TAKRL was my first contribution to Misplaced Pages.I just did as Misplaced Pages encouraged me to do,share information.I admit that I did 2 mistakes as a beginner.I uploaded the information partly without being logged in to my user account and partly logged inn.I can see now that it was a mistake.I also appologize for re-entering the information after it had been deleted.However,I think Mr Wazowski could handled this is a more polite way.He could had informed me about the need to verify the information from a reliable source BEFORE he deleted everything.I also find the remark..quote " edits appear to constitute vandalism" quite harsh and unfair.Finally,I DO HAVE a reliable source for all the information,it is not my personal reseach.Everything can be found in the book HOT WACKS "THE LAST WACKS" issued by THE HOT WACKS PRESS.BOX 544.OWEN SOUND N4K 5RI.CANADA in 1992.The book have been on sale through Amazon.com.If anybody can tell how to link my information to this source,then I will be happy to do so.I notice that there are already other users who have started to link part of the discography to valid sources.It is also my intention to finish the discography with the last part of releases and I apply to the Administrator to not lock me out of wikipedia..regards rune] (]) 15:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
:Interesting - not once did I use the phrase ''"edits appear to constitute vandalism"'' in my messages to Flyspes, either in template messages or regular conversation. Perhaps you could show me where I supposedly did this, as you appear to be mistaken. ] (]) 15:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
I would like to inform the Misplaced Pages administrators that I will try my utmost to obay the rules layed down and play by the book.I have now linked the TAKRL discography I have uploaded on Misplaced Pages to a valid source.The book Hot Wacks "The last wacks" is still on sale on Amazon.com and I have also supplied the page numbers and ISBN number.I would like to be informed that I can go on and ] (]) 19:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)update the TAKRL article with the last part of the discography.


] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:: '''Comment''' Flyspes is a new user and seems genuine enough. I would say this requires no further action, it's easy enough for someone to open a dispute at a later date if this proves unsuccessful. ] (]) 19:55, 4 December 2011 (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)
*'''Result:''' No action for now. Since the cited editor made a conciliatory response, let's wait and see if they will accept consensus. The case can be resubmitted if this doesn't work out. ] (]) 20:56, 5 December 2011 (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: Closed with no action taken) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|MathewTownsend}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
<!-- 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. -->
# {{diff2|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1268002110|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
* 2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1267995715|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 3rd revert:
# {{diff2|1267994453|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- 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 -->
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Editor demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of 3RR, edit warring, and numerous other WP policies including how to not use edit summaries, personal attacks, and civility and has been notified of same on his talk page several times over the last 24+ hours. Before his latest revert on the page noted above, I filed a report at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard because of his behavior at the ] page. ] (]) 23:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*'''Response''' I am a new editor here, although I have been watching for a while, and I'm trying to learn the rules. I repeatedly tried to remove/redact comments I had made from the noticeboard that I regretted. No one had responded to them and I believed that redacting or removing such a comment was ok. I was repeatedly reverted and told that it was against the rules to remove or redact comments, but that was contrary to what I have observed. Finally I asked at ] and was told that there was no rule against removing such a comment. The last revert was due to a mistake by an editor who apologized to me on my page for doing so. I merely restored what he had mistakenly removed. Please ] here. All the "reverts" were me trying to clarify my own comments, nothing more. Unlike Lhb1239's reverts, where he reverted my attempts to clarify my own comments, all my changes were confined to my own comments which had not been responded to on the Noticeboard.
#
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:In truth, I am just trying to be clear in my comments on a discussion page and have no interest in edit warring over article content. Rather, I am interested in explaining myself on the talk pages. Thanks, ] (]) 23:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
*Two reverts that returned my redacted comments by Lhb1239
* "Undid revision 463846292 by MathewTownsend (talk)on noticeboards, you can strike your comments with a <nowiki>'<s>/''</s>'</nowiki> but not remove)
* "(Undid revision 463869286 by MathewTownsend (talk)as stated previously, you can't remove comments from a noticeboard - striking is sufficient and transparent)"
* Accidental reversion by ] for which he apologized.
*Lhb12339 also file an action against me at ] but the responder agreed with me:
::*"Is there anything more? The four diffs show pretty ordinary back-and-forth on a user talk page. When I did a quick skim of User talk:MathewTownsend I was surprised to see MathewTownsend say he is new as he seems to be discussing the BLP issue in an appropriate manner. If there is an article accusing living person X of having caused the death of Y (yet X has never been charged), it is highly inappropriate (laughable actually) to respond with "There is no deadline in Misplaced Pages". I do not think it is a WQA issue for an editor to talk about "your article" after reading "If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level". It may well be that some inappropriate behavior is going on somewhere, but WP:CIVIL is not a guarantee that editors will not face frank opinions when raising an issue at a user talk page."


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
:*I don't think that trying to clarify one's own comments on a discussion page (comments that have not been responded to) should be considered a "revert", especially since such removal/redaction is allowed. This would mean that editors could not reword their comments, which I see them doing frequently. I see editors making multiple edits to their own comments on talk/discussion pages and on ones gets them for a "revert". This is not the same as article content edit warring in my eyes as the "war" was over my comments, but maybe I am wrong. Thanks, ] (]) 00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
*'''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)
:p.s. ] has made 29 edits to my talk page over the last day or so. I'm really unable to understand what is going on and can't understand the information in so may posts to my page, mostly with threats and warnings, so it has rattled me. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something. I apologize for any wrong doing. ] (]) 00:28, 4 December 2011 (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)
::Reverting your own actions is a clear exemption to the three-revert-rule so, while striking comments is more appropriate, the 1st and 2nd reverts are not counted for the purposes of 3RR. The "3rd revert" isn't a reversion at all, it's an addition of comments made necessary by Lhb1239's inappropriate reversions of edits that MathewTownsend had made to his own edits, as is the "4th revert". The "5th revert" is also a case of an editor reverting his own actions, so that also is an exemption to 3RR. Lhb1239's restoration of MathewTownsend's comments after they had been removed was inappropriate, as was the reversion of the changes that MathewTownsend had made to his own comments. It is disturbing to see Lhb1239 continue to edit-war with editors despite a recent block, a warning and nawrrowly missing a block only 4 days ago, where it was stated "Lhb1239 should not expect that continued reverting on this article is a safe activity". It is even more disturbing to see that he seems more than happy to report others for edit warring, while he seems to believe himself to be immune from such action. --] (]) 08:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
:::If any administrators do look into this report, I would hope that they would not take AussieLegend's biased viewpoint in regard to me at face value. Aussie has within the last few days suggested I leave editing a TV article he frequents. One of Aussie's TV project Wiki-friends is one of the editors who placed an edit warring notice on my talk page prior to the report mentioned above being filed - and that editor has stated that wherever I go in Misplaced Pages, I will be "shouted down" because I do not see eye-to-eye with their views on certain television project articles. Aussie has an agenda with the above comments. Whether something is done about this report by the hand of an administrator should be determined by an administrator, not a non-sysop editor who tries to muddy up with waters because he has a personal beef against the person reporting the offender. And, just for the record, it was determined by at least one admin that I wasn't edit warring in the situation Aussie is referencing (hence, the reason I wasn't blocked). I'm not the issue here - MathewTownsend's edit warring behavior is. ] (]) 16:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
:As pointed out above, self-reverts are permitted under ] - the only issue on a discussion area would be if another editor had already responded to those posts, which does not appear to be the case here. As no one had responded there's no issues caused by removing the text, although striking the comments would still be preferred; or as an option, to remove the text and clearly mark that it had been redacted (as MathewTownsend did in at least two of the edits). Regardless of the underlying content dispute - the claimed 3RR issue described here is not actionable. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 21:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: article fully protected) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Battle of Romani}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|RoslynSKP}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Time reported:''' 03:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268186883|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202556|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202677|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268203165|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204621|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204745|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204943|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268205104|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268208200|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"


''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC'' '''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:'''
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463293680 by ] (])Stop cutting information from this GA")</small>
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463299635 by ] (])This is a GA please discuss edits on talk page")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463303595 by ] (])unnecessary")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463299224 by ] (])This is a GA do not edit without first discussing on talk page")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463471714 by ] (])move on")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463471680 by ] (])deletion of info general readers won't be aware of")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463470740 by ] (])unnecessary")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463468934 by ] (])undone because previous wording awarded GA")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463468827 by ] (])undone because information does not improve article")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* British forces */ move photo and map to more clearly set out deployments")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "cut reference to India as no India units mentioned as being involved in this battle")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463860861 by ]reinstate information the general reader may appreciate (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463859995 by ] nothing wrong with Anzac(])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463808868 by ]scattered is a better word (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* British forces */ cut clarification, do the reserarch and improve the article if you can")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* German and Ottoman force */ reinstate link")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Prelude */ correct name")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463796653 by ] (])No its not")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463796008 by ] (])given the context the term is fine")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Background */ reinstate para")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Casualties */ Anzac is not incorrect")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Aftermath */ Anzac not incorrect Battle proper noun")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Casualties */ Anzac not incorrect")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Action of Bir el Abd – 9 to 12 August */ Anzac not incorrect counterattack not incorrect, firefight not incorrect")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Chauvel's force advance on Ottoman rearguards */ reinstate information general readers may appreciate")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Battle on 5 August */ southeasterly not incorrect Anzac not incorrect infantry not wrong")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Battle on 4 August */ undo red links not required, reinsert infantry counterattack not wrong, firepower not wrong; reinstate Falls quote")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* British forces */ firepower not wrong; red links not required")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* British forces */ reinstate links; reinstate info;this was an all arms operation and the fact that they were infantry or mounted units needs to be provided particularly for the general reader")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Development of defensive positions */ reinstate infantry this is an all arms operation and these units need to be clearly differentiated for the genral reader")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Light Horse patrols before the battle */reinstate counterattack")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Prelude */ reinstate link")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* German and Ottoman force */ cut links to nowhere not required")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Prelude */ reinstate infantry; reinstate affair")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Background */ reinstate affair, Anzac both not incorrect")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Affair reinstated cut red links not required;reinstate substantial not POV")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "reinstate names of countries involved in Battle of Romani")</small>


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


—] (]) 03:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC) == ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
:I have to endorse theses comments, with the caveat that I am an involved party. ] (]) 09:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
This has continued today:


# <small>(edit summary: "/* Casualties */ reinsert sandcart")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463989038 by ] (])there are too many red links in this article")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463988641 by ] (])Cut hyphen reinstate brackets cut more red links")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463988420 by ] (])reinstate infantry division name")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463988154 by ] (])cut another red link")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463987695 by ] (])cut another red link")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463987573 by ] (])reinstate brackets cut more red links")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 463979208 by ] (])The whole British Empire did not fight at Romani, cut more red links, counterattack, Anzac, Affair of Katia not incorrect")</small>


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
— ] (]) 11:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
#
*{{AN3|pe}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 12:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
] says, "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." In the above list of diffs, 1-4 count as a single revert, as do 5-12 and 13-38. In the list of diffs added today, #1 is part of the previous revert involving diffs 13-38 and diffs 2-8 are also one revert. RoslynSKP has provided edit summaries for all but one diff. In total these constitute 4 edits over 4 days. This is a content dispute and the page has now been protected as a result. --] (]) 12:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Talk:Lance Kennedy}}


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.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theseus1776}}


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
'''Time reported:''' 17:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


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


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''


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


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
This guy reverted my additions to his talk page, which included a discussion of the neutrality of the article and links to the autobiography guidelines. He also reverted some template additions to his regular article page, which were related to the discussion page information he removed. This really needs another editor's attention because the editor in question believes I'm personally attacking him. —] (]) 17:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' No action. The editor has not continued to . Let's hope he got the message. If it happens a second time he may not be so lucky. ] (]) 04:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
== ] and ] reported by ] (]) (Result: articles protected) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Angelo_Mosca}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Joe_Kapp}}


'''Users being reported:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
# {{diff2|1268272867|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
# {{diff2|1268269093|23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268248948|21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
{{userlinks|70.27.194.185}}
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Time reported:''' 22:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


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


:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
*Angelo Mosca
: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)
# <small>(edit summary: "trivia")</small>
: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)
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 464080487 by ] (])")</small>
::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)
# <small>(edit summary: "Its useless fluff that has nothing to do with this man's notoriety. This is the kind of crap that gives wiki a bad name])")</small>
:::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)
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 464085047 by ] (]) Mosca was a pro wrestler, so this hardly violates BLP standards...sourcing is impeccable this media sensation event")</small>
::::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)
# <small>(edit summary: "Have a little class and restraint. Its people like you that make wikipedia the place where you go to smell stale internet farts.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 464105162 by ] (]) docuemnting mosca class and restraint")</small> :::::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)
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 464117543 by ] (])")</small>
::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) ==
*Joe Kapp
# <small>(edit summary: "useless trivia")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 464080713 by ] (]) story is national sensation in Canada/US, extensive media coverage")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Its useless fluff that has nothing to do with this man's achievements or accomplishments. This is the kind of crap that gives wiki a bad name.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 464084887 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Have a little class and restraint. Its people like you that make wikipedia the place where you go to smell stale internet farts")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 464105411 by ] (]) thanks for the laugh with that last comment")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 464117342 by ] (])")</small>


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
'''Comments:'''


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
Apparently the subjects of these two articles recently got into a scuffle, which was covered by a significant amount of media. A user added information about the incident to both relevant pages. The IP editor in question has then removed the information from both pages repeatedly, deeming it "fluff." He appears to have otherwise edited constructively.


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
—] (]) 22:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:Neither editor crossed the 3RR threshold (narrowly defined) and they seem to have stopped edit warring for now. They haven't started discussing this content dispute though, so I've protected both articles for one week to encourage this and prevent further outbreaks. ] (]) 09:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Block) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dera Sacha Sauda}}
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


'''Users being reported:'''
*{{userlinks|Sarsathug}} for breaking 3RR and repeatedly removing well-referenced content as in the previous section "Controversies" , and
*{{userlinks|Vikas.insan}} for being involved in that edit war with massive use of promotional text and non-NPOV edits.


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


Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- 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. -->
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
*
*


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
<!-- 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 -->
Vikas.insan had previously been contacted on their talk page about promotional edits on that article: , and Sarsathug has announced that he will continue his dispruptive editing despite of several warnings .


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <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."
# {{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:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Note also these IP edits where accusations to the article's subject are made in the edit summary that are similar in wording to . ] (]) 22:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


Sarsathug has now been by Materialscientist for edit-warring and violation of ]. Vikas.insan is however continuing his promotional campaign . ] (]) 13:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Sarsathug is now reblocked for continued warring after the initial block. I hope the submitter of this report will keep an eye on Vikas.insan and see whether a further report is necessary. From a quick look, it seems that the two editors are POV-pushers on opposite sides of an issue. Since Vikas.insan has received plenty of notices and still not changed his approach, his next undiscussed revert of the article should result in a block. Vikas.insan from a different article. He adds promotional fluff to Dera Sacha Sauda . ] (]) 16:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
**Agreed, I shall have a look on Vikas.insan's activities. We might also want to keep an eye on {{userlinks|Ravjordan}} whose account is brand new and whose only edit as of now consists of . ] (]) 21:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Climatic Research Unit email controversy}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Viriditas}}


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


Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:


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)
<!-- 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. -->
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* 1st revert: - Admitted revert per a not very nice edit summary.
*: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)
* 2nd revert: - I had just added the ''dubious'' tag and he did not justify removing it.
*{{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)
* 3rd revert: - a reversion of the previous edit - Per the edit summaries, the intent of the first edit was to add the word speculate, and the intent of the second was to revert that.
* 4th revert: - I would think pure removal of text would be a revert in any context.


:{{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)
<!-- 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 -->
::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*I realize the policy states, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts'', right? '''This is three, not more than three.''' It shows the desperation. ] (]) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
<!-- 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 -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - This section of the talk page is regarding the ''dubious'' tag, which is the dispute that pertains to me. I have skimmed through the talk page and seen discussion pertaining to the other reverts, but didn't want to wade through that mess unless I'm asked to.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# "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)"


<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
This is a 1RR article. Viriditas disagrees that he has violated 1RR and has invited me to make this report to decide. With the definition of 3RR on this page, I think it's clear he has.--] (]) 03:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:May hit "bright line" on a 1RR article with edits which I count as reverts being at 3:40 on 3 Dec and 3:37 on 4 Dec -- looks like he was trying to ''exactly'' pass the 24 hur mark and failed. Removing a tag (first revert) has long been held to be a "revert" and counts. Second one at 3:40 is a clear revert. 23 hours 53 minutes < 24 hours, I fear. ] (]) 12:54, 5 December 2011 (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."
::{{an3|s}} ] (]) 11:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
# "Lady Saso: Reply"


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked for one week ) ==
# "Lady Saso: New Section"
# "Lady Saso: Reply"


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Roy Spencer (scientist)}} <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|88.123.232.186}}


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


In 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).
Previous version reverted to: (first removal of the information by this editor plus movement of footnotes, 3 December)


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.
* 1st revert: 8:55 (removal/footnotes)
* 2nd revert: 8:58 (removal/footnotes)
* 3rd revert: 9:09 (footnotes only)
* 4th revert: 16:26 (removal and footnotes)
* 5th revert: 17:57 (removal only)


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 ].
(The reverting editors in the opposite direction were Stephan Schulz, Ryulong, Ryulong, VsevolodKrolikov, Hans Adler.)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See ].
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
Warning was after the 5th revert, but user had a 3RR warning for a related article on 1 December, followed by a 24h block for breaking 1RR. ] ] 18:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
:I've blocked the IP editor for one week, which may have been generous given of their edit warring and the sensitivity of this issue. Drop me a line directly if this re-occurs. ] (]) 09:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|108.64.173.236}}


#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Has been edit warring constantly. ] (]) 19:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
#
#
#


:They have been blocked for 24 hours by {{user|Syrthiss}} ] (]) 09:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paloma Faith}}


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|91.154.106.199}}


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


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert: Edit summary: "i have created paloma faiths own discography page!" (referring to )
* 2nd revert: Edit summary: "stop DISCOGRAPHY HAS OWN PAGE!!"
* 3rd revert: Edit summary: "discuss before starting to do something else, its better to have this way, because every singers page has it like this." where I had already begun a discussion on the article's talk page and the IP about that.
* 4th revert:


I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 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 -->


== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lee Jung-jin (footballer)}}
<!-- 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|Sillypickle123}}
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
See also the comments the IP left on my user talk page: et seq. ] (]) 20:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
* by ], edit summary: "singles are already shown in the dischography page, only albums are shown on the main page, look: ]." Obviously the IP thinks that there is a rule that if a discography exists we must not have other recordings listed in the artist's article than albums. And obviously they didn't read the discussion on the article talk either. ] (]) 23:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 10:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268583865|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268451301|21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268450870|21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268449472|21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268448980|21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Indef) ==
# {{diff2|1268447335|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
# {{diff2|1268463321|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Media Matters for America‎}} <br />
# {{diff|oldid=1268447335|diff=1268451519|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ElSaxo}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

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


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

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of notification user that ] calls for articles with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country to use the date format common to that country: <br/>
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
User with a past history of edit warring apparently attempting to impose UK/European style dates in an article about a US based organization in clear violation of ]. --'']''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:Do note the following cases here as well:
:*
:** User received a warning and a block (2 weeks) for these, commented not to be interested in any form in discussion with 'coward IPs' or others (see e.g. ] and ]..
:* and
:** After last block, move warring, again no discussion.
:*
:** After last block, slow edit war, again no discussion.
:Note that the last talk space ''comment'' is on (see also - other edits are moves of pages in talk space or removal of comments without answer: , ). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
::*This one probably needs a block. 1 month, I'd say. ] (]) 11:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
:::*I'm leaving it to another admin, I would not choose objectively anymore I am afraid. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 11:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Blocked indef. Any admin may lift or modify this block if they are convinced the editor is now willing to follow our policies. His edits during last May's dispute (which led to a two-week block and a talk page ban) indicate extreme stubbornness. "Imagine how I am willing to 'discuss' with a coward anonymous user"; " in peace and quiet - please go to the hell." The whole discussion is still visible at ]. His recent edit warring was accompanied by no discussion whatsoever. In my opinion he should remain blocked until he expresses willingness to discuss his edits and agrees to follow Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 16:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: page protected for three days) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Gabe19}}

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=463454977

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=463576785
<!-- 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: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=463576785
* 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=463941129
* 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=464051822
* 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Immortal_(Michael_Jackson_album)&oldid=464182328

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

<u>Comments:</u> <br /> I keep fixing this page with official information and Gabe19 keeps reverting it every single time.

--] (]) 05:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:I gave enough reason for the removal of the deluxe cover in the edit summary stating the "Image fail ], as it states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" and as I stated on the , "The deluxe edition cover ''clearly'' violates ] as it states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." It's the '''same image''' and the '''same text''' just a different color, which is not enough to warrant its inclusion. I will be removing it once again, and the next time it is added back in, I will reporting it to the Edit Warring noticeboard and request this page be locked. I'm tired of stubborn editors who fail to follow policy." Now I see User:ADKIc3mAnX is trying to turn the tables by reporting me when in fact they refuse to abide by '''Misplaced Pages Policy'''. — ] ] ] 05:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added the picture to the article since the Deluxe cover is different than the regular cover and stores show both covers and it does NOT violate anything since it's an alternative cover for another edition. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:On what grounds, just the background color? Is that your only argument? Because its ''different''? Not enough. Same image and text in the same place as the original. Have you not clicked on ]? Have you not read where it states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."? Quit being so naive and follow the rules. — ] ] ] 07:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

*{{AN3|p}} Both editors appear to have violated ], but Gabe19's reading of ] seems correct so I don't think that blocks would solve anything. I've protected the article to allow for a discussion on what version of the image to use. ] (]) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Climatic Research Unit email controversy}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Tillman}}

<!-- 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: (n/a, multiple reverts)

Note: the page is under 1RR restriction, I'm reporting here as it tells me to.

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


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

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No explicit warning given. But PT has been around and knows about edit warring.

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Misc discussion, inclunding ], but the last two reverts happened overnight; even a self-revert now wouldn't pull him back under 1R.

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
*'''Reply:''' WMC is generally correct. I clearly lost track, and apologize for breaking 1RR. A few words of explanation may be helpful:

"Revert#1" was discussed at some length. Not quite a revert, but restoration of the news item discussed there, and certainly not "edit warring".

""Revert#3" was not a revert (except perhaps technically): See , which is a discussion of whether to use opinion quotes at this stage. I removed the text in question as an attempt to restore NPOV, while the subject was being discussed. I went to self-revert this as an indication of compliance with the 1RR rules, but found another editor had already reverted. Again, no "edit warring" was intended.

I'll be taking a voluntary break from editing this page to help cool things down there. --] (]) 15:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

: Rv #3 most certainly is a revert, there is no "technical" about it. I'm not happy with you quibbling that. I should have given the full diff you reverted though: . Nor I am happy with you quibbling rv 1, either. And how long is "a voluntary break" - with no duration specified, this is meaningless ] (]) 18:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

::If the goal is a "preventative" block then the break is sufficient (any short block would be meaningless). If the goal is to "punish" (long or indefinite block) then this is really the wrong noticeboard. Try AE. ] (]) 19:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

* This may be the wrong noticeboard, in which case give guidance and I'll move it, but it relates to the context of Pete's edit warring. reintroduced accusations against living people presented in a questionable source. Since the end of November Pete Tillman has been pushing the boundaries of BLP, introducing blog based accusations against living people, posting leaked primary sources taken out of context to attack the conduct of living people, arguing that a living person has committed misconduct on the basis of Pete's own reading of leaked primary sources taken out of context, and citing a blog to back up his claim, and adding criticism of a living person based on a misreading of the sources he cited. In my view Pete should show more care, and perhaps take a break from the topic area rather than just one article. . ], ] 19:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
:: Dave, the proper place to take a topic-ban proposal would probably be ] given that the article is under sanctions from ] (and behavior at this article was one of the primary drivers behind opening of that case, if I understand correctly). Regarding the edit warring reported here, a voluntary break of a few days from the CC pages would probably serve more good than a block at this point. Whether an involuntary topic ban is in order is a longer discussion more appropriate for other forums.... ] (]) 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I'll consider that if Pete resumes the same behaviour after his break from editing. My concern was that the offer was confined to the one page, that's now been made moot by the decision below. . . ], ] 23:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*'''Result:''' Blocked 48 hours and notified of the discretionary sanctions under ]. Tillman's edits at 23:06 on December 5 and 05:17 on December 6 were both reverts. Together they violate the ] restriction on these articles. If Tillman were a new editor we would probably close with no action if the person offered to abstain, but he is a veteran of the ARBCC debate. ] (]) 22:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Prinz.Deases}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

<!-- 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> Editor has habitually added hoax article ] and is trying to change ] and ] to support hoax.<br />

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{an3|b|indef|by=Future Perfect at Sunrise}} ] (]) 18:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sonic Generations}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|174.57.156.12}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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


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

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

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

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|p}} Semi-protected for a day by Malinaccier for "Excessive unsourced changes". ]]<font color="#0645AD"></font> (]) 07:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

==] reported by ] (]) (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Doug Williams (bassist)}}

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sabot-7}}

'''Time reported:''' 12:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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

# <small>(edit summary: "I myself edited this page,DATES and TIMES the facts herein are true and accurate. Can you please not modify it? Thank you. Doug Williams")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "I only added a brief background on myself, and tried to expand the article by adding separator lines and Bold Type. I'm still trying to learn to do this correctly. ")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid deletions to page by Bot? I inserted this personal information about myself by myself. ")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Douglas A Williams, a living person made these canges {{tl|helpme}}")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: )</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Revision updated 11/7/2011 by Doug Williams")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Citations repaired by Doug Williams")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Removed any Non-Cited Information")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Added Citing Sources")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* References */ ")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Attempted to rebuild page {{tl|helpme}} if I need to add Citing Information and exactly on which parts?")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "{{tl|helpme}}I am confused as to exactly what needs to be Cited")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "1 more attempt to modify {{tl|helpme}}")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "I drew a "Line")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Cephalic Carnage */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "added spaces")</small>

* Diff of warning:

The first edit in the list above might not be a revert (I include it here only to show that this editor is the subject of the article). But there are four subsequent edits/groups (as apparent in the history) that ''are'' reverts.
—] (]) 12:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
*Note the editor in question (and his self-admitted ]) continue to restore the contentious info despite consensus via that the material should not be included. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

**{{AN3|b|48 hours}} --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 16:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dera Sacha Sauda}} <br />
'''User being reported:'''
*{{userlinks|Sarsathug}} for using abusing language and removing the cited and referenced material and doing non-sense changes hence
breaking the WP policies, earlier as well he was reported by ], for 3RR and repeatedly removing well-referenced content
Link to the complaint :
which I undid earlier because he was putting abusive language and removed almost the entire content, and continued doing that, so I undid his baseless and abusive changes, stoping someone from using abuses should be appreciated, but I got warning for the same for being a part of edit war, but i think edit war is of view with respect to some topic, when someone is using abuses, it should be strongly opposed by everyone, and this is what I did earlier. Now the moment this user is unblocked after being blocked for 3 days, He is again doing such abusive and baseless changes, so request to please block this user.

<!-- 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:

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

*'''Result:''' Sarsathug is already blocked two weeks. No further sanction is needed. Vikas.insan, thank you for taking an interest in how disputes are resolved on Misplaced Pages. Be aware that you may be blocked yourself if you continue to edit non-neutrally at ]. Some problems with your editing have already been described at ]. To avoid further criticism, please use the talk page to arrive at consensus for the article and do not use the article as a promotional vehicle. ] (]) 20:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Newark Liberty International Airport}}<br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|72.231.8.53}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

<u>Comments:</u> This IP continues to add Cathay Pacific to HKG without specifing an actual date per ]. It was reverted by me and 2 other editors. We also left 3RR message on his talk page. ] (]) 19:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)<br />

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

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|159.53.46.141}}</br>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|159.53.78.143}}</br>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|159.53.174.145}}</br>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|159.53.110.141}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

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

This shows 4 IP addresses, all within the same range and all registered to JP Morgan Chase, making essentially identical edits adding and removing certain text to the subject page, 8 edits and 7 reverts in total within about three and a half hours. (Three separate editors endeavored to maintain the text as it had been originally.) I placed warnings on three of the four editors' pages (missed one). Final reversion came after the warnings, and by an IP address that had received one. ] (]) 21:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:20, 10 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Vandalism

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

    • I am going to advise that we delay any action here until Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shecose is resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      That is because CNMall41's only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this is block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Shecose, to satisfy his personal ego (above and in Special:Diff/1268349248 too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. Shecose (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Theonewithreason reported by User:PhilipPirrip (Result: )

    Page: Novak Djokovic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Theonewithreason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:


    1. Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

    I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? PhilipPirrip (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Sillypickle123 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: blocked indefinitely )

    Page: Lee Jung-jin (footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Sillypickle123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268451486 by LizardJr8 (talk)"
    2. 21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268451068 by LizardJr8 (talk)"
    3. 21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268450442 by LizardJr8 (talk)"
    4. 21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268449111 by JacktheBrown (talk)"
    5. 21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268447167 by Tacyarg (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
    2. 22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Lee Jung-jin (footballer)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123

    Comments:

    Categories: