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 03:35, 4 February 2014 editEdJohnston (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →User:يوسف حسين reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: 48 hours): Closing← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:12, 9 January 2025 edit undoRed-tailed hawk (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators32,707 edits →User:Shecose reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: ): advise
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/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 = ~~234~~		\|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}}
	== Muslim/Zionist category tag warring reported by ] (Result: No action) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	Users involved:
	*{{ip\|139.164.160.141}}
	*{{ip\|85.166.53.217}}
	*{{ip\|94.203.97.130}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	The above users are engaged in edit warring related to articles on persecution of or terrorism by Muslims or Zionists. The activity involves repeated addition or removal of category tags from a large number of articles. Some users are leaving highly charged or disparaging comments towards the others in edit summaries. Please refer to contributions.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	The matter was previous brought up at ] though no action was taken.
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:52, 23 January, 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
			# {{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:'''
	*'''Result:''' No action. The second and third IPs appear to have stopped editing. I don't see any recent problems with the #1 IP. Report again if you see any abuse. This case was . ] (]) 04:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Vevo}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|The sun2013}}

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|593333865\|20:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Vandalism page vevo 💕 in English, This page needs to be protected from the clowns that erases information or enter false data to generate controversy among the fans of the artists."
	# {{diff2\|593332590\|20:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Vandalism page vevo 💕 in English"
	# {{diff2\|593318350\|19:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 593317551 by ] (]) WTF WHO THE PEOPLE?"
	# {{diff2\|593312145\|18:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)}} ""

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|593346718\|22:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|593318032\|18:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Do not restore the "Certified" list. */ new section"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Constantly restores content that was removed as a violation of ]; editing pattern and conduct seems to imply "]" behaviour <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 22:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' ] is '''warned''' not to again the 'certified list'] that was unless he obtains consensus first. Another admin has imposed semiprotection for a year and we'll see if that helps with the turbulence on this article. ] (]) 17:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
			# (31 December 2024)
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|User:Jackmcbarn/PCRFC_implicit_oppose}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Jackmcbarn}}

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

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

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

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			: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)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			::{{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)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	<!-- 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:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	:For one, 3RR doesn't apply in your own userspace. Also, I made it clear that that was the wrong page to edit. Thirdly, the warning link was ME warning YOU. Finally, you started undoing my regen of the page, which is clearly blatantly unconstructive. ] (]) 02:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
	:Oh, AND the first two reverts were by {{u\|Technical 13}}, not me! ] (]) 02:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*{{AN3\|no}} ] indeed doesn't apply to a user's own userspace, and it also doesn't apply to reverting clearly disruptive edits, such as ]'s of a name that belongs on that page per its inclusion criteria. ] (]) 02:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
	::Hi Huon,
	::Can you please educate me, and show me that specific policy?
	::And please note that the diff you showed was just me undoing this where '''Jackmcbarn''' undid the edit from Aircorn - not me. Thanks. ] (]) 04:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
	:::Aircorn never edited that page. I added his name to the list in . You undid my edit for no reason in . ] (]) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
	::::Read , it clearly states it. ] (]) 04:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
	:::::AcidSnow already pointed out where the exceptions to ] can be found, and Jackmcbarn pointed out that he didn't revert thrice anyway. Regarding Aircorn, he , which by the rules laid out at the top of ] counts as an implicit oppose to proposal 4. Jackmcbarn ; 88.104.24.150 them with an edit summary that rather clearly shows that 88.104 didn't understand what they were doing, and reverted a second time for good measure. Both the original report and 88.104's reply here contain so many falsehoods that it's almost comical. 88.104.24.150, you may want to read ]. ] (]) 13:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|User:Jackmcbarn/PCRFC implicit oppose}}
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|88.104.24.150}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|593498345\|22:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Implicit opposes */ r"
	# {{diff2\|593513643\|00:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 593502212 by ] (]) per and lack-of-response theirin"
	# {{diff2\|593521159\|02:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 593521016 by ] (]) IP hate, meh"
	# {{diff2\|593522192\|02:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "oops"
	# {{diff2\|593522373\|02:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 593522253 by ] (])"

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
	# {{diff2\|593502328\|23:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)}} "General note: Editing tests on ]. (])"
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}
	# {{diff2\|593520651\|01:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Vandalism on ]. (])"

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|593512673\|00:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring}} "Archiving 4 discussion(s) to ]) (bot"

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			#
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	My first revert of this user's post was a full ] assuming it was just a misplaced or test edit. The IP, told me it {{Diff\|User talk:Technical 13\|593502733\|593372630\|was not a test}} and reverted my undo of their edit. This quickly escalated into a full out edit war between this IP and another user which resulted in protection of the page being edited. Reviewing the contributions of the IP will show that it is obviously and vandalism only account and should be dealt with as such. Thank you. / ] (]) 05:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	"it is obviously and vandalism only account and should be dealt with as such"

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

			{{AN3\|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Even though I've 'vandalised' nothing.

			: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)
	Meh. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*{{AN3\|p}} (semi'd indefinitely as a user request in own userspace). <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 05:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|~~Yom~~ ~~Kippur~~ ~~War~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Ersroitasent}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|593571322\|12:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 593570058 by ] (]) it was not supported by consensus Do not edit war, take it to talk page"
	# {{diff2\|593569334\|11:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 593542650 by ] (]) no consensus"
	# {{diff2\|593513700\|00:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "undo trivial edit by Mikrobølgeovn"

	;Diffs of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ ~~/ 3RR warning~~:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268186285\|diff=1268208200\|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|593250225\|08:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|~~593570852~~\|11:57, 2 ~~February~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)}} "~~Caution:~~ ~~Unconstructive~~ ~~editing~~ ~~on ]. (])~~"		## {{diff2\|1268186883\|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268202556\|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268202677\|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268203165\|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204621\|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204745\|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204943\|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268205104\|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268208200\|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"

	;Diffs of ~~attempt~~ to ~~resolve~~ ~~dispute~~ ~~on article talk page~~:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268160425\|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1268160707\|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."

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

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

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	Clear violation of 1RR rule within 24 hours. Spotted this violation earlier too, warned the user several times, but still another case of edit-warring. The diffs have been provided, the user is edit-warring with several experienced editors, as evident from the . He did three reverts in 24 hours. <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> 12:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Clearly not supported by consensus

	We've had this discussion it was not supported by consensus--] (]) 12:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	: And that's an exception to edit-warring? In addition, 3 separate people seem to be "against" your edit - that looks like better consensus that you think <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 12:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
			#

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*{{u\|Ersroitasent}} {{AN3\|b\|1 day}}. {{u\|Faizan}} take care, you were only 3 hours outside 24 hours yourself. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
	::Sure Callanecc, thanks. <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> 12:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
	::: Yes, {{u\|Faizan}}, being 3 hrs outside of 24 is usually considered gaming the system, and should also have led to a block <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 13:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{u\|DangerousPanda}} Whatsoever, it was not a 1RR violation. I don't have an active editing history in that article and I am not an edit-warrior. I admitted my mistake, and promised to improve it next time, then how does it mean that I was gaming? <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> 13:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|<!-- Place name of article here -->Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea)}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->Oda Mari}}

			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.
	<!-- 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. -->

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	Previous version reverted to:

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

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted to revision 592667818 by ]: The description of the source is unreliable. Besides, there's no mention on Japan in the source. Please provide RS with evidence like the source #37. . (])")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted 3 edits by ] (]): Though it's cited, there are no evidence in them. (])")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): The evidence is the photograph of the forein aircrafts and their identification. See talk page. (])")</small>

			:]
	<u>Comments:</u> <br /> These are unjustifiable disruptive reverting purely for personal nationalistic reasons.
			:"""
	*{{AN3\|d}}. {{U\|STSC}}, don't make accusations without evidence. I don't even understand your involvement (or uninvolvement) in the dispute. The IP addresses, btw, all come from an Amazon corporate account. There's been no ] violation and the reported editor has opened a discussion on the talk page.--] (]) 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
			:] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-delete3 --> ] (]) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ] (]) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: They're up to it again ] (]) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:""" ] (]) 01:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|World number 1 male tennis player rankings}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Capricornmanager1}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff\|oldid=593065450\|diff=593571125\|label=Consecutive edits made from 11:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 12:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|593570922\|11:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* 1913–present */"
	## {{diff2\|593571051\|11:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
	## {{diff2\|593571125\|12:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
	# {{diff\|oldid=593579973\|diff=593612376\|label=Consecutive edits made from 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|593612100\|18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* 1913–present */"
	## {{diff2\|593612177\|18:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
	## {{diff2\|593612250\|18:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
	## {{diff2\|593612376\|18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
	# {{diff\|oldid=593617361\|diff=593620572\|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|593619334\|19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	## {{diff2\|593620062\|19:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
	## {{diff2\|593620500\|19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
	## {{diff2\|593620572\|19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
	# {{diff\|oldid=593621478\|diff=593622062\|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|593621935\|19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
	## {{diff2\|593622062\|19:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* 1913–present */"
	# {{diff\|oldid=593623898\|diff=593624457\|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|593624271\|19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
	## {{diff2\|593624337\|19:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
	## {{diff2\|593624457\|19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* 1913–present */"

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|593624693\|19:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Refrain from reverting */ new section"

			'''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>
	This is not the first time this editor has been told not to keep reverting by multiple editors, though it is mostly in the subject lines. His 3RR is going on. Not sure why he won't listen. Warning given and yet he did it again. I certainly have no qualms about an administrative warning being given instead of any kind of block... but I thought it should come from someone semi-official instead of just other tennis editors. ] (]) 19:59, 2 February 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)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Ayurveda}}
			: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)
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Anil Singh Pokhriyal}}
			: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) ==
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|593482600\|20:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|593604844\|17:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|593606341\|17:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 593605262 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|593608844\|17:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|593629939\|20:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} ""

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|593607344\|17:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. using ]"
	# {{diff2\|593609946\|17:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Using Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on ]. using ]"
	# {{diff2\|593629297\|20:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "pointer"

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>


	Editor is adding quasi-spam to article. See ] ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

	:Even though no discussion has taken place at article talk page, NeilN has been involved in a lengthy discussion at his own talk page (thread linked above) about verifiability and related policies. —''']''' (]) 21:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
	:I have also started one at the talk page. ] (]) 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Misplaced Pages Policy says "The person should be noticeable" and the author of the books is very significant person in India then how can others mark it as spam without verifying that. All the books are original and written by ] himself based on Ashtang Hridyam <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:That sounds like you have a content dispute with other editor(s) and need to resolve that at the article talk page. Edit warring is not an acceptable means to resolve the disupte. —''']''' (]) 21:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} User made to the ] article, in spite of all the advice above and requests to discuss on the talk page. —''']''' (]) 21:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Vader~~ ~~(band)}}~~ ~~<br~~ />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Batiste Igienice}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			# {{diff2\|1268346980\|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# {{diff2\|1268346280\|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
	#
			# {{diff2\|1268345229\|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	#
	#
	#

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- 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:

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: I told the user to consult the talk page before making revisions, and he would not. ~~~~ -->

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

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Philip Seymour Hoffman}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Winkelvi}}

			This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to 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. -->
			*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}
	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 -->
			# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			# "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."
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			# "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)"

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

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
	] has been attempting to scrub any mention of the syringe found in Hoffman's arm from the article, reverting 3 different editors' attempts to insert the mention based on the NY Times article, offering only the excuse that "newspapers say a lot of things." ] (]) 22:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"
	:"Scrub" is an unfounded and simply untrue accusation. My feeling? ] is seeking punitive rather than preventive action and is ticked because I objected to his un-encyclopedic edits. I started the talk page discussion on the disagreement in content, explained why I felt what he was adding didn't belong, and he didn't like what I had to say. It was then and only then he placed a 3RR notice on my talk page, and then threatened filing this report on the article talk page. I admit I was probably too over-zealous in protecting the article, but I never had any intention of edit warring, and I still don't see how Mcnicki thinks adding unproven and speculative content is appropriate. My comments at the article talk page regarding his inclusion of certain content are thus: "Who were these "investigators"? Newspaper people? NYPD detectives? The Medical Examiner? "Investigators" is pretty vague. As far as what the NYT says: newspapers say a lot of things. Just because it's said doesn't make it fact, even if it is from what Misplaced Pages considers a reliable source. There is no deadline in Misplaced Pages and we are not newspaper reporters trying to "scoop" one another. We are supposed to be supporting the writing of content in an encyclopedia. Hypodermic needles, envelopes, and the like reported by unnamed "investigators" just isn't encyclopedic. We can do better than that". I still believe we can do better than the content Msnicki was putting in. For me, it's not personal, it's about the content. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 22:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|w}}. {{U\|Winkelvi}}, you violated ] and there's no exemption for your reverts based on, for example, a ] violation. However, I'm willing to accept that you acted in good faith and that a block at this point would be punitive. However, I strongly urge you to leave the article alone for a while lest any edit you make, even if it's about different subject matter, constitutes a revert. There are a lot of people editing the article, and I'm sure it will get along just fine without you. Also the stuff about {{U\|Msnicki}} doesn't seem to be supported by any real evidence, particularly as you reverted several users. You are, of course, welcome to contribute to any discussion on the talk page.--] (]) 00:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	::Point(s) taken, ] and will do. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 00:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week) ==
			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.
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Seaquam Secondary School}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|50.67.92.94}}

			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).
	<!-- 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. -->

			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.
	Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Seaquam_Secondary_School&diff=prev&oldid=592276842

			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 ].
	<!-- 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. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	<u>Comments:</u> <br /> IP has been reverting content to his preferred version without responding to the concerns raised on the edit summaries and his user page. He has also took to ] my edits to revert them, such as and

	] (]) 05:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b}} – 1 week for disruptive editing. Two different IPs are revert warring to add ] language to ] so I've applied semiprotection. ] (]) 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Kazuma Ieiri}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|113.52.17.67}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	<u>Comments:</u> Anonymous user keeps butchering this article about a current Japanese political candidate (]). Did the same edit for a fourth time after being warned of 3RR. Not sure why they are so obsessed with this guy in particular... <br />

	] (]) 13:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b}} – 48 hours for edit warring. Removing sourced content with no explanation. It doesn't make much sense to add a notability tag after you've removed the sources that show notability, while giving no reason for your change. ] (]) 21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Yemen}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|يوسف حسين}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# (removed identification of the Jazali group)
	# (ditto)
	# (ditto)
	# (ditto)

	<!-- 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> User violated 3RR over content dispute on ]. He has been revert-warring on the page over BLP material with a number of different editors, including administrator ]. The user has in the process also engaged in personal attacks in his edit summaries, while altogether avoiding discussion on the article's talk page. Additionally, he is simultaneously revert-warring on the ] page with several editors over the same issue (, , ). ] (]) 15:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	:This user has admitted formerly being ]. Back on December 15 this editor was also for warring at ], and it seemed to be a 3RR violation. That particular report was closed as stale. ] (]) 17:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	* May I add there is a problem with this editor please see the comment and its racial overtones. --] (]) 22:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	::{{AN3\|b}} – 48 hours. The user has been reverting the ] article a lot but does not participate on Talk. As with mentioned by Inayity he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss. His theory about his opponents was also stated in his edit summary : 'some Afrocentrists here are working together'. Any admin may lift this block if the user agrees to engage in discussions and wait for consensus before reverting again. ] (]) 03:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sodastream}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Precision123}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	<u>Comments:</u>This is a 1RR article as stated on the talk page which this user has edited. I've edited other parts of the article, but not any part related to this 1RR infraction. I have however interacted with this "new" editor on other articles and believe they are not here to help the encyclopedia but to further a POV by edit warring - - 5 reverts on a 1RR article in January. ] (]) 16:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC) <br />

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

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|French fries}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Wester}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff\|oldid=592238295\|diff=593645957\|label=Consecutive edits made from 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|593645424\|22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} "back to original version"
	## {{diff2\|593645957\|22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|593713312\|11:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|593717246\|12:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "again: back to original version before someone screwed up"
	# {{diff\|oldid=593747771\|diff=593761076\|label=Consecutive edits made from 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) to 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|593761018\|18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	## {{diff2\|593761076\|18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Belgium */"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|593661304\|00:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* French Fries */ please stop"
	# {{diff2\|593747963\|16:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* French Fries */"

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|593748276\|16:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* France/Belgium origins */ new section"

	;<u>Comments:</u>
	:I restored it back to the original version of a few months ago. It's EvergreenFir that keeps pushing his version. If anyone should be reported it's him. A bit lame that he tries to resolve it this way. I that the French claim is more recent than the Belgian claim. Then it's clear that in the template only Belgium should be mentioned and not France. --] (]) 18:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	::And note that's it's NOT a edit war. The last two edits were not simple reverts but a rework of the page. EvergreenFir is even reverting which are outside the mentioned conflict. It seems that he is not looking what he is doing.

	::In the last edit I even tried to resolve the matter by simply removing the 'invented' section in the template. Since all this talk about who invented the fries is getting kind of silly, the reality is that nobody knows for sure.--] (]) 18:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

	:::You were asked repeatedly to take it to the talk page and refused. Your edits were still removing the content related to the reverts. You are ]. As I've said multiple times, we are here to report on the state other sources. There sources saying there's a debate. We must report on that. It would be ] to take sides and to choose one is ]. ] (]) 18:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	::::You keep mentioning that holy source of you. A source that no one can verify since it's a book. Most sources, like are clear: Belgian claim: 17th century and French claim: 1789. So France should not be mentioned in the template. It's as simple as that. And that was also the original version. France is only added on January 9, 2014 by an anonymous user: . It's that dubious edit that I reverted. --] (]) 19:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


	Forgot to note this is not the user's first time edit warring according to their user talk page. ] (]) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	:::::That is character assassination. I am active on Misplaced Pages since 2005 made nearly 3.000 edits and nearly 100.000 edits on the Dutch wikipedia and have never been blocked. That's a clear indication. I do not know what EvergreenFir's intentions are with this action. A block solves nothing here. --] (]) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Wester (then known as Westermarck) has been blocked on the Dutch Misplaced Pages at least once, so that's a lie and they know it: Naturally, the links are in Dutch, but it was for sockpuppet use.
	::::::Wester has never been blocked on the English Misplaced Pages, but has come close more times than I can count. Their talk page history shows that it's repeatedly sterilized of the accumulation of warnings for their long history of edit warring, unilateral page moves and other edits that defy consensus. At any rate, the idea that Wester has a history of good behaviour is patently absurd.
	::::::As for the actual article, choosing an arbitrary edit from over a year ago isn't good justification for the deletion of content. And Wester's argument doesn't even make sense. With the actual origin unclear, the fact that one dubious origin story uses an earlier date than another dubious origin story doesn't make it the right one. It's not clear where fries were invented, so it doesn't make sense that Wester (or ES&L) dismiss it as obvious. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

	* Can we put this on ]? The world (including the French) know that Frenched, Fried Potatoes were invented in Belgium. Citations are everywhere <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 19:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	::That isn't the issue. It's the removal of the fact that the French and Belgians both claim it from the article. Repeatedly. Also, it doesn't matter if Wester is right or not (as the EW warning template says). (S)he was edit warring. ] (]) 21:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	:::No, you are not looking to other sources and keep focussing on the words 'ongoing battle'. Most sources are clear that the Belgian claim is older then the French one. BTW: lot's of sources also mention Spain. --] (]) 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Easter Rising}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|92.11.192.215}}, {{userlinks\|92.11.202.180}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	No four reverts within 24 hours, i.e. gaming the system.

	<!-- 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> The user is a dynamic IP. I am requesting page semi-protection. ] (]) 21:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Karl Marx}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|94.27.233.95}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|593772314\|19:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|593774191\|19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 593772711 by ] (]) Being born of a line of rabbies is pretty much being of Jewish origin."
	# {{diff2\|593777333\|20:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "That doesn't make the Jewish ancestors disappear."
	# {{diff2\|593779357\|20:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 593777695 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|593780251\|20:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 593779411 by ] (])"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|593778074\|20:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


	;<u>Comments:</u>

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Turkey}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Lord of Rivendell}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|593793416\|21:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "After a massive removal spree of factual and visual content, you arrived back to 172K. Bravo..."
	# {{diff2\|593801398\|22:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Adding back all the citation tags (they didn't save a significant amount of space, anyway)"
	# {{diff2\|593803488\|23:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Sorry, I missed two citation tags: One in the intro, one in the Etymology section. Now they are all complete."
	# {{diff2\|593804878\|23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "All the citation tags are now restored. Your deletions saved less than 1K."

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|593803030\|23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|593804840\|23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Comparing Turkey with its equivalents */"

	;<u>Comments:</u>

	Note that my changes were the result of a five-day discussion on ] where the article's issues were extensively discussed and there was wide agreement on the need for changes, but that didn't stop Rivendell from restoring his own revision. Several other uninvolved users also complained of Rivendell's tendency to violate ]. ] (]) 23:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	:Edit: after another editor restored the previous version, Rivendell went on to revert a .--] (]) 00:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:12, 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)

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: )

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)

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: