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

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

Revision as of 13:12, 15 January 2014 editWerieth (talk \| contribs)54,678 edits →User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,733 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{offer help}}{{/Header}}]
			<!--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 = ~~232~~		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Declined/locked) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2014 Formula One season}} <br />
	'''Users being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Prisonermonkeys}} and {{userlinks\|Joetri10}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Previous version reverted to: {{Diff2 \|590299735\|12 jan 2014 01:17}} for Prisonermonkeys , {{Diff2 \|590294829\|12 jan 2014 00:32}} for Joetri10
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- 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. -->
	Diffs of the users' reverts:
	# {{Diff2 \|590328476\|12 jan 2014 06:50‎}}
	# {{Diff2 \|590328691\|12 jan 2014 06:53‎}}
	# {{Diff2 \|590329126\|12 jan 2014 06:59‎}}
	# {{Diff2 \|590329278\|12 jan 2014 07:01‎}}
	# {{Diff2 \|590331174\|12 jan 2014 07:24‎}}
	# {{Diff2 \|590332337\|12 jan 2014 07:38‎}}
	# {{Diff2 \|590332661\|12 jan 2014 07:43‎}}
	# {{Diff2 \|590333373\|12 jan 2014 07:54‎}}
	# {{Diff2 \|590333991\|12 jan 2014 08:02‎}}
	# {{Diff2 \|590336801\|12 jan 2014 08:44‎}}
	# {{Diff2 \|590339545\|12 jan 2014 9:23‎}}

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

	Bitter edit war between two users. Prisonermonkeys has already displayed similar behavior in the past. ] (]) 18:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|d}}. This matter was brought to ANI, and I locked the article. This report should not have been filed. We're done here for now.--] (]) 18:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
	::So you think that the reported behavior is completely acceptable? The page has already been put under full protection less than a month ago as an measurement against edit warring resulting from a content dispute involving the same groups (I hate to admit that I myself was involved in the content dispute) of users as in the current content dispute. This proves that the attitudes fueling them are not temporary. I have refrained to take sides this time. I have initially given my opinion which content I prefer but have not involved myself in the bitter dispute. I have unsuccessfully tried to resolute the dispute on the Talk page by searching a compromise. Now it has descended into pure edit warring. Furthermore, if you take the time to take a look at Prisonermonkeys' talk page you will notice that the user has been reported for edit warring on 4 occasions within the last 7 months. All of this made me decide to report both users. ] (]) 20:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::I would like to point out that user Prisonermonkeys has since gotten involved in an other, related (minor) edit war on ]. You can see this on the template's history . The users made no attempt at all to resolve the dispute on the ]. ] (]) 19:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Death and funeral of Ariel Sharon}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ohconfucius}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

	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. -->
			# (31 December 2024)
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# (~~and bunch of other edits that~~ ~~are~~ ~~continous~~		# (6 January 2024)
	#		# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	<!-- 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: + yesterday I said on other pages that he should discuss the removals first. Also per BRD he needs to discuss, not ''re-assert'' his being bold as in the 2nd link above.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	:The article is under 1RR sanctions per the talk page, and it says there to report incidents here. So I followed the protocol per "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.".] (]) 09:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*'''Comment''' : It was up to the understanding. One guy around there promotes the palestinian quotes, while ] tried to stop it. Hope we don't have to go further, and solve this on talk page instead. I don't see any backup from the original edit warrior anyway. ] (]) 14:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	::The point of this was the warring, the recverts beyond 1RR which clearly happened.] (]) 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|w}} - User of 1RR sanctions. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	**There is no violation. The diff above claiming to be an attempt to discuss is nothing of the sort. It is a ] with the summary "rvt undiscussed removals". It seems that the objection is to me making edits, or most likely, "removal of sourced text" without first discussing with them. I removed blatant ] to the objection of Lihaas. I have stuck to the 1RR: there is no second revert. Lihaas reverts what I wrote, but does not discuss. It is to the talk page first. Lihaas reverts me and comes to report me at AN3. I to the talk page. Lihaas should be reminded to abide by WP's policies and guidelines, and not insist on adding (or preventing removal) of ]. In particular, that they should observe violate ], ] and ]. I also believe they should avoid ] and ]. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	::You had 2 reverts in less than 24 hours. I did no t do that. Per 1RR rules you can be blocked ''without''warning. Please be aware of the notice on the talk page.] (]) 05:09, 14 January 2014 (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 />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 month) ==

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Richard Feynman}} <br />
			: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)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|14.198.220.253}}
			::{{AN3\|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	<!-- 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\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	<!-- 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. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# (upon my invitation "Better take your doubts to the talk page")
	# (upon my "Then take it to the article talk page. See ]")

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Invitiations to go to article talk page in edit summaries
			# {{diff2\|1268002110\|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
			# {{diff2\|1267995715\|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267994453\|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	Technically not 3RR, but behavior clearly indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	] (]) 10:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{quotation\|but behavior clearly indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly.}}
	:Look, one quote is missing, during the discussion I didn't tell you that I ''refuse to talk'', instead I (implicitly) ask you to present your dismay.
	:So, your "but behavior clearly indicates.." indicates that you '''feel''' that I refuse to talk, well, then make me do it, so you can prove. I want to report you too if you waste administrator time and harass good-faith editor. --] (]) 10:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	:*I also ''feel'' like you refuse to talk, and I base that on the fact that you have not taken the issue up on the talk page, which is what "talk" means, narrowly defined, on Misplaced Pages. I'm not going to revert your most recent edit, though there also you're edit warring; I don't disagree with a kind of introduction, really a kind of disclaimer, since as far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be a quote box there, but you are undoubtedly warring and editing against consensus. ] (]) 18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::Note: given that the above IP has continued to edit-war over the article, and has demonstrated similar behaviour in multiple other places, I have started a thread at WP:ANI. ] (]) 18:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b}} – 1 month by ]. The same IP editor has also been discussed at ANI. ] (]) 22:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

	==] reported by ] (Result: No ~~violation~~)==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Talk:James~~ ~~Delingpole~~}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|~~Darkness Shines~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			#
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->

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

			: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)
	Later, the template was removed by someone else . ] from reverting edits to articles that pertain to climate change, perhaps the sanction should be extended to talkpages as well.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	Also see ] where he is warned against edit warring on talkpages.
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	] (]) 20:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	:KTM has removed that template twice, and has only filed this non edit warring report because I told him if he removed it again in violation of TPG I would report him. ] (]) 20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	::I removed it twice, and then someone else removed it, because it was an inappropriate use of the template. I filed this because when I tell you the template use is inappropriate, you won't listen. ] (]) 20:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|nv}} – The discussion on the talk page should continue. The ] article remains under full protection per another admin. The behavior of DS is only restricted on articles, not talk pages. DS did not break 3RR on the talk page though he isn't doing himself any favors. ] (]) 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Both blocked) ==

	'''~~Page~~:''' {{~~pagelinks~~\|~~Iran~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Florian Blaschke}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iran&action=history
	Previous version reverted to:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iran&action=history
	<!-- 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. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268186285\|diff=1268208200\|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			## {{diff2\|1268186883\|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			## {{diff2\|1268202556\|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268202677\|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268203165\|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204621\|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204745\|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204943\|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268205104\|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268208200\|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			# {{diff2\|1268160425\|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			# {{diff2\|1268160707\|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> i don't have experience with this edit war report so sorry for that, but this user is edit warring i talked to him to do comments and talk to him in his talk page but he isn't acting like an adult. please stop him and is also reverting things on his talk page where i talked to him, take a look<br />
			# {{diff2\|1268160586\|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	~~:Funny enough, it's ] himself who has broken ]: I reverted 3 times, he reverted 4 times within the~~ 24~~-hour period. Oops~~ ~~...~~ --] (]) 20:48, 13 January ~~2014~~ (UTC)		{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	ofcourse because you are constantly reverting my edits i just deleted a sentence which hadn't proof or references. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*{{AN3\|bb\|24 hours}}. Feysalafghan violated 3RR. Florian Blaschke edit-warred. Apparently, Florian thinks that reverting three times is acceptable. Additionally, their edit summaries were unjustifiably attacking and provocative: "No. The sentence is correct. Stop this vandalism, or I'll report you." One of the edit summaries ("I didn't insert the sentence. You deleted it, and you need to justify that.") inherently made no sense. Florian did insert "the sentence", at least as far as I can tell, and, normally, a revert of that addition would trigger ]. Finally, Feysalafghan is a new editor, although not an angel based on their history, whereas Florian is not.--] (]) 00:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

	==~~] &~~ ] ~~reported~~ by ] (Result: ~~Semi~~)==		== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Peter O'Toole}} <br/>
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|109.78.219.165}}<br>
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Rms125a@hotmail.com}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}

	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. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:

	]
	#
	#
	#
	#

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

			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.
	*I have been observing the situation on the article and have stayed out of the edit war but both the IP and the above user have been edit-warring and the incivility has escalated between them. The 3RR between them has been breached by both. I think it is disingenuous on the above user's part to imply that it was only the IP that was edit warring. I have also to a stable version of the article until the dispute has been appropriately resolved. A dispute resolution has been put into place. ] (]) 20:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	:: I did not deny having likely violated 3RR (read ignored self-reporting) but in response to the actions by the unregistered IP, whom I regard as a vandal. I not only self-reported, I opened a dispute resolution as no one else seemed likely to do so. I will serve any 3RR block which may be handed down. ] 20:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::Also, please see my response to ]'s query on the O'Toole talkpage, "Please explain how the edits are vandalism", to which I replied: ''"I regard them as vandalism as they are unrelenting, intransigent demands, largely by unregistered and anonymous IPs which ignore all explanations, assertions and edit summaries with which they are not in complete agreement. IP demands are for text (in lede or lead) to be phrased exactly as they want it, rejecting all attempts at compromise (i.e. "British and Irish", "Irish-British", "British actor of Irish descent", "British actor of Irish and Scottish descent who later acquired Irish citizenship", et al). Quis separabit? 20:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)"'' ] 21:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	::::] Looking at you contributions I see you have been an editor here for years with a , you of all people should not be edit-warring. I really find it difficult to believe that you do not understand what constitutes vandalism and what is subjected to the 3RR. Also next time, please file a proper report and don't think just because you happened to be the first one to file for dispute resolution (before reverting the article in question to your preferred version) means that exempts you, you are not some innocent bystander here. ] (]) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (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)
	:::::Also, the vile comment by ], ''"You should be used to serving blocks by now ... your block list is mile long"'' (since changed to ''"you have been an editor here for years with a "'') shows that this user is unprofessional and biased, and lacks ]. ÓCorcráin was making almost the precise same edits as ] when ÓCorcráin was actively editing the O'Toole page himself/herself, which I guess is why he/she is actively monitoring the page, thus hardly " innocent bystander" himself/herself either. ] 21:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	::::::Actually no, they are not "precisely the same edits". First point being that I compromised and backed off from the whole issue of nationality and seeing what happened now, I was right to do so. Second point, I distinctly remember how incivil you were to me and others on the talk page, I see that you still are with your accusations, and the only reason that I mention your block list is because you have exhibited the same repeated pattern of disruptive behavior before. I will not be commenting anymore but I suggest that you log off and watch some TV, have a cup of tea and cool down. ] (]) 21:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' Semiprotected two months. There seem to be five or more reverts by a throwaway IP on the nationality issue. In my opinion, warring over nationality (for a person who may have been born in Ireland in 1932) could fall under the ] case and we may consider taking out that big hammer soon. Meanwhile, Rms125a@hotmail.com has opened a ] which seems like a good idea. It would be unfortunate to put full protection on an article of a recently-deceased person because we might miss out on some good contributions. Leaving the nationality field blank (until high quality sources are found) seems an excellent idea and it has been tried elsewhere. ] (]) 00:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

			:]
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==
			:"""
			:] 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)
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Doctor (Doctor Who)}}
			::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Arms Jones}}
			::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) ==
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|590513068\|14:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 590511557 by ] (]) However you see it, your solution gives the following Doctors the wrong numbers."
	# {{diff2\|590532578\|17:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 590513486 by ] (]) exactly, so don't try to give him a number"
	# {{diff2\|590558088\|20:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 590541194 by ] (]) I have already made my point on the talk page, but since you don't want to hear about that I don't take your edit seriously. So I revert it."
	# {{diff2\|590563022\|20:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 590561417 by ] (]) The War Doctor is still not = the Ninth Doctor. I'm just setting the numbering straight."
	# {{diff2\|590569527\|21:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 590568061 by ] (]) Still no reason for the wrong numbering without saying anything about it on the talk page first."

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			# {{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:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Repeated reverts of several users ] (]) 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	:Comment: I added a 3RR warning to the user's talk page{{diff2\|590570339}} about seven minutes after the most recent revert. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 21:50, 13 January 2014 (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)
	:I have made my position clear on the talk page of that page. None of the others are interested in discussing. ] even deleted my friendly note to him that I actually had used the talk page - which is the reason I reverted his revert of my revision to the page. ] is only reporting this because he doesn't like my opinion in ]. ] (]) 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	::A single post to the talk page does not exempt you from following ] (a list of acceptable exemptions is listed). You are unquestionably edit warring. You need to get consensus on the talk page prior to restoring your edit (there is no timeline, give it a few days, even a week or more to see what consensus develops). --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 21:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	:::I have made two posts on the talk page. Others have urged me to use the talk page without doing it themselves. ] (]) 22:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
			:And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. ] (]) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. ] (]) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. ] (]) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at ], not one as you claim. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. ] (]) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article ']' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
	::Given the issues and previous case where I had to take this user to ANI about edit warring over non-free media, I was just keeping an eye on them for a few days to ensure that no further NFCC issues cropped up, and I stumbled upon this edit war. Reporting it has nothing to do with NFCR. its just a case of 5RR. ] (]) 21:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	:::Sure it is. You still don't know the nature of non-free media. ] (]) 22:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::I think you have it backwards, Ive got probably 25k edits in regards to non-free media enforcement. If you take a look at the discussion at NFCR there is a significant consensus that usage of non-free media in that gallery is unacceptable. You have made a point of not listening to what others say, and making mis-quotes about what others say. So again what defense do you have for edit warring twice in a few days time span? ] (]) 23:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Two different situations which can't be compared. Your history of enforcement doesn't make you an expert. You still don't get the nature of legal protection for coats of arms and started to revert things there without any discussion, while I had already made my point on the talk page just before my revisions and I had to take the matter to another discussion because you just didn't care to; the discussion is far from over so you can't say there's any consensus for any solution yet and the matter of free or non-free images is not the main point in that discussion. Here, I tried to talk from the start but noone took part in the discussion until this situation came up, even if some of the others had urged me to talk, they didn't see I had already started a discussion (one person obviously didn't even want to see that). ] (]) 08:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' Warned. The user made five reverts (all marked as 'Undid' in the history) within 24 hours at ]. As ] has explained above, none of the exceptions to ] apply to these reverts. User would have been blocked but for the fact that he did not receive a timely 3RR warning. ] (]) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked; Davidmichaelscott warned) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Ariana Grande}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|La Avatar Korra}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{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 ~~the~~ ~~user's~~ ~~reverts~~:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# {{diff2\|590593407\|00:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)}} "the user Davidmichaelscott should the respective consensus, is making changes on the article. see the history"
	# {{diff2\|590591748\|00:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)}} "should be left in the previous version"
	# {{diff2\|590587144\|23:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)}} "clean"
	# {{diff2\|590550505\|19:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)}} "undid."


	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	# {{diff2\|590592543\|00:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
	User has violated ] here and is also close to violating it at ]. This user ''frequently'' ] on both of these articles. <font color="#BA181F">''']</font> <font color="#BA181F"><small>]</small></font>''' 00:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
	::The user Davidmichaelscott is already looking consensus on discudion page. I'm no changes, we discuss the user to make consensus and that's what is done. () not if you have something personal with me or the article, but must seek dialogue with me with your words, not just automated messages erroneous. you are the one who make me ill interpret my problems and issues. Thanks. Attentively. ] (]) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC) ps: sorry for my english, sorry.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	::: ] is very clear and you have been notified numerous times about it, yet you ignore the obvious rule we have. <font color="#BA181F">''']</font> <font color="#BA181F"><small>]</small></font>''' 01:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::sorry I do not speak much English and I can not explain better. I just want to say that static has been misinterpreting my edits, is the only one that does that to me, he does not seek dialogue. Static at almost every opportunity violated that rule. In this case, I was reversing editions of other user that made without consensus , and to reach consensus, leave in the previous version. In the discussion of the article is consensus. Static, please understand that I have been reversing the earlier editions of the user who made no consensus. Sorry for my english, thanks. ] (]) 02:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}. I am also '''warning''' {{U\|Davidmichaelscott}} that future violations of ] will lead to a block. I'm not blocking you this time because my reading is that your edits were in good faith and you were not warned. In addition, you do not have anything like Connie's disruptive history.--] (]) 02:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	::Thanks for understanding, sorry for any trouble caused. ''']'''– ] 15:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\| Mr Whoppit}} <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."
	: Also {{pagelinks\| Robin (magazine)}}
			# {{diff2\|1268346280\|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TheRedPenOfDoom}}
			# {{diff2\|1268345229\|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	Contested deletion of sourced article.

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	# - PROD as " all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind"
	# (since ANEW) ]

	Two blankings and redirections, one prod for " all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	This is a minor article, but part of the overall story for ]. Donald Campbell isn't well-known on Misplaced Pages and has already been repeatedly blanked from ], but in the UK he's still very well known. ] was his teddy bear mascot, ] was the comic in which it first appeared.

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Red Pen is a self-confessed arch-deletionist. See the ''many'' other articles that have encountered his editing, or his bright-red editing history. Unusually, he rarely deletes articles outright, but prefers to delete them piecemeal. In this case though, he's attacking a sourced article, twice blanking it with a redirect (and of course no, he didn't attempt to merge any of this content into another article, just blanked it) and then prodding it - almost instantaneously. The prod is on a basis that is simply lying (and very obviously so), ''" all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind"''. There are 9 references cited, some of which are stronger than others, but two are utterly robust: ]'s biog of Campbell ''Donald Campbell: The Man Behind the Mask'', generally considered as a canonical text by an author ]otable enough for their own article and also the ], which describes a family feud and included Whoppit's part in that. Campbell's widow, Tonia Bern-Campbell also discusses Whoppit in her autobiog ''My Speed King'', but no doubt Red Pen will describe that as "COI" on some dubious grounds.

			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)
	The coverage of Whoppit was removed from the ''Robin'' article twice . This was not a GF cleanup of that article, as most of it consists (and still does) of a list of redlinks with no sourcing whatsoever. However Red Pen didn't go for any of that, they just went for the Campbell content, which was linked to the sourced article.
			*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:That is because {{u\|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			:{{u\|Shecose}}, {{tqq\|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	There is no credible ground for blanking this article, especially not without any attempt at discussion. This is a regular style of editing by this editor, an editor with a broadly corrosive influence on WP editing for others. If an editor wishes to delete an article, we do of course have AfD - a route that Red Pen has been invited to consider for this article, but they appear unwilling to expose themself to the consensus of others.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	This is not about a contested deletion of one article - we have AfD and its many eyeballs for that. This is about a regular pattern of disruptive anti-consensus behaviour by Red Pen.
	*{{AN3\|d}}. This is not the right place to bring up a pattern of behavior unless it involves a recent violation of ] or clear edit warring.--] (]) 23:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# "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)"

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of original programs distributed by Netflix}} <br>
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|50.138.249.164}}

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#		# "Lady Saso: New Section"
	#		# "Lady Saso: Reply"
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.

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

			In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
	<u>Comments:</u> Repeated reverts without using an edit summary or participating in talk page discussion to rally a consensus for user's edit. IP disruptively undoing reverts by multiple trusted editors.<br />

			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.
	-- ] (]) 01:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|w}}. I have left a formal warning on the IP's talk page that if they revert again, they may be blocked without notice. For other administrators, the block should be of sufficient length to take into account the IP's sporadic appearances at Misplaced Pages. I understand the disruption. Every time the IP has edited, even though it may have been days since their last edit, they have done nothing but revert in that article. That said, they have not been warned recently (last time was in December), and it's possible that they were unaware of the talk page discussion. It's generally better to ''alert'' an editor, particularly if they're new, that a discussion is taking place.--] (]) 02:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Voice to skull}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Synsepalum2013}}

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 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. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#

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

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	An unfortunate case of a new contributor who seems not to understand Misplaced Pages policy, and an article which frankly should never have got past AfC (deletion looks a near certainty ). While technically we aren't at 3RR yet, the contributor seems intent on adding claims from individuals concerning a supposed conspiracy involving supposed 'torture' via a (hypothetical) device for transmitting sound to their heads via microwaves. The material, or material much like it, has repeatedly been removed by other contributors, it has been explained that such claims are afforded no credibility by the sources cited - though the specific claims made in the latest edits appear not to be directly supported ''at all'' in at least one of the sources cited. While I'm reluctant to ask for a block for a new contributor who would never have been put in such a position if the AfC process had worked properly in the first place (the article, when approved, was a dreadful mess of WP:OR/synthesis ), I suspect that without such a block, the contributor is going to carry on adding dubiously-sourced claims of conspiracies until the article is finally given the boot. ] (]) 02:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hotel California (2013 film)}} <br />
	'''Users being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TheRedPenOfDoom}}
	: {{userlinks\|Muthalathu}}

	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

	Repeated blanking of a substantial section of an Indian film review because Red Pen would appear to not like the quality of the review sites cited as sources.

	Whether this edit is right or wrong, we have a policy against edit-warring because edit-warring is ''of itself'' disruptive. We relax this in some copyvio or BLP cases, but we do not relax it over minor content disputes. This editing (on an article I admit I have zero interest in) is just the latest example of Red Pen's arrogant editing style: he's right, the rest of us are just peasants to be ignored. I see no attempts at discussion on the article talk: or any obvious user pages.

	No doubt this is not bright-line 3RR owing to careful timing between reverts. Red Pen's wikilawyering is nothing if not meticulous in its details. However WP:EW is quite specific: edit-warring is edit-warring and it's not necessary to breach 3RR for it to be so.

	Do we still care about tendentious edit-warring?
	:Multiple attempts at opening communication at both the user page and his ip page resulted in and Andy's petty revenge for me nominating his ] are a bit sad and juvenile, but not unexpected.-- ] 04:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
	::Per the suggestion from EdJohnston I will not edit the article for a week.-- ] 11:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
	:: I admit I discovered this article of yours when looking at your edit history re: another article, where you're trying to delete an article with a dozen sources for failing ]. However six repeats is six repeats, whatever else you're up to. ] (]) 11:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::Yet another example of Andy wikihounding and harassing users he is in a disagreement with. ] (]) 13:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.

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

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

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

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

"I "tried to delete me reporting them""

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

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

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

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

The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level

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

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

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

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

I notify the user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: