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 11:59, 17 May 2014 editDangerousPanda (talk \| contribs)38,827 edits →User:Mmddyy28 reported by User:DVdm (Result: ): close← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,733 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	{{no admin backlog}}
	<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 = ~~245~~		\|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}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Russell Targ}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Brian Josephson}}

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

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|608353050\|09:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Remote viewing */ improving precision: the view that RV is PS is not held by _all_ as existing version implies"
	# {{diff2\|~~608363953~~\|11:27, 13 ~~May~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)}} "Undid revision ~~608357278~~ by ] (]) ~~where there is controversy, a respectable encyclopedia would say 'generally'~~"		# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	# {{diff\|oldid=608364148\|diff=608365472\|label=Consecutive edits made from 11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) to 11:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}}
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	## {{diff2\|608364215\|11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "including 'pseudoscience' is unnecessary as it is referred to in the article, and more significantly conflicts with WP:NPV"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	## {{diff2\|608365472\|11:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "restored 'generally', as it is untrue to say there is no controversy, as evident in many of the sources"

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


	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|608357457\|10:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Assert mainstream scientific consensus */ new section"
	# {{diff2\|608364574\|11:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Assert mainstream scientific consensus */"
	# {{diff2\|608365683\|11:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Improving the lede */ cmt"

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

	Note this editor has a COI and continues to edit the article directly rather than propose changes on talk and follow consensus. ] (]) 11:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	:''Comment by editor concerned:'' readers of the above will note that my edits involved straightforward points that should not reasonably have required discussion on the talk page (for example, RV clearly is a controversial area, contrary to what was asserted by the editor that I reverted). Also that I have received praise and encouragement for my editing by editors who obviously think I am doing the right thing. --] (]) 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::If Brian Josephson is edit warring, so are the other participants: ] and ]. Users cannot edit war with themselves, it's a multi-person ordeal. And edit warring in tango with others isn't an exception to the edit warring policy.--v/r - ]] 16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::] you seem to have also forgotten ]. I saw that there had been an edit war and reverted it back to before the edit war started. ] Made a bold edit, he was reverted; that is when he should have gone to the talk page. He continued to edit ] did go to the talk page on the revert. He also has a COI which he has been notified about, and just got off a block for legal threats. Yes it takes more than one to tango, but someone normally leads. ]<sub>]]</sub> 16:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::] if you examine my edit history on the article with some care I think you will find my edits in keeping with policy and supported with discussion on the talk page. I think you will also find my comments on the talk page to be reasonably offered arguments supported with policy. If you take a look at the actions of several other editors I think you will find tendentious, disruptive and non policy based actions often against consensus. Should a report be made at another board or is this the appropriate place for discussion? - - ] (]) 17:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
	::::While all of that is probably true, I doubt I need to double check since I'm not opposing it, none of it is an exemption under the edit warring policy. Correct, sourced, policy-based edits that revert another editors multiple times are still edit warring. In any case, I've fully-protected the article for a day to facilitate discussion because the edit warring has gotten out of hand on this article. See the other report below.--v/r - ]] 17:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	* '''Comment''': Being "obviously right" or having "straightforward points" is never an excuse for edit-warring <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	* Meh. I've encountered him on numeorus pages related to pseudoscience and crank ideas. He is polite, yes he advocates fringe content and edits articles accordingly, but he rarely if ever edit wars and he is not some crazed kid on a mission, he is a Nobel laureate who advocates fringe ideas. He has sufficient self-awareness to recognise that his ideas are often well outside the mainstream, sometimes to the point of being in a different river altogether. My personal view is that he keeps us honest, without overwhelming us with crap. I think that's within the boundaries of OK, though not always and often not by much. I think patient cluefulness is the best approach here.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}
	: In short, some people are not worth dealing with, others are sufficiently intelligent and articulate that they benefit the Project even while being mainly wrong. I would far rather ten Brian Josephsons than a single Dana Ullman. The one thing you can say for Josephson, he has intellectual honesty. I do not believe he represents his views as anything other than alternatives to the norm, he seems to me to take criticism in good part. I even like him. He seems pretty calm, has access to the research, and so what if he concludes differently? He seems to accept compromise and consensus which is not flattering to him. I'd invite him to a certain party if I was not sure he'd be busy.
	: Some folks are fun and instructive to debate and encourage properly robust thinking. I think he is one of this rare breed.
	: I understand the context of the request, but a few decent editors with no COI are working with Josephson to fix issues without accepting his opinion on them, and he is genuinely co-operating. This is different in character form your typical advocate for refuted ideas. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
	::I fully understand the constraints under which WP has to operate. I tend to take short cuts when I think logic strongly supports the edits I am making, but this doesn't always work out as I thought it should.<br>One point -- I don't know how many editors are aware of this -- is that there is an advocacy group dedicated to removing items they consider (from a very entrenched sceptical PoV) incorrect. There is a video on the internet where their leader explains how you can use WP guidelines to achieve this. I should imagine a number of this clique are working here on the various pages I have been involved with. Also there is reason to believe that some people watch over my edits and mindlessly revert these edits automatically. A spectacular case is where I spotted an error in the name of my physics master at school and corrected it, whereupon one of these trolls leapt up claiming this was a CoI, there was no RS for this (this is a classic case of problems with the guidelines -- the only reference to my physics master on the web has the name wrong, so in theory that wrong name is the one that has to appear in the bio. Fortunately in this case common sense prevailed and my correction was allowed to be put back). But to get back to the point, neither exploitation of the rules to support a PoV nor watching over an editor so as to revert whether or not there is good cause would seem to be in accord with WP ethics.<br>One more point before I close this already too lengthy comment: consensus is in principle fine, but the problem is distortion in the population of editors. By this I mean that many editors seem to have little in the way of the broader understanding needed to produce a good result (those who do tend either to be too busy or to be fed up with what goes on in the WP world so leave) with a consequence that might be described as ''insufficient wisdom''. I'll stop there. --] (]) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::Yes, there can be very excessive scrutiny sometimes. An amusing case I remember: very stern warning was posted on a user's talk page. Why? Because an article about a TV programme the user had directed mistakenly linked to a comedian with the same name. He had removed the link so as to leave his name as plain text. When various people removed the warning from the talk page the scrutineer edit-warred to restore it. ] (]) 14:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*{{AN3\|s}} This happened 2 days ago, it's been thoughtfully discussed, and I think everyone involved understands the way forward. I don't see anything being gained here from a block, and possibly quite a bit lost. ] (]) 20:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Already blocked) ==
			# (31 December 2024)
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Godwin's law}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|86.154.93.189}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|608464660\|23:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608464518 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|608464954\|23:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608464801 by ] (])"

			<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 />
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|608464605\|23:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|608464983\|23:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Using improper humor in articles on ]. (])"

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			:I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{AN3\|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	I reverted an inappropriate attempt at humor twice, IP editor reverted his changes to article. I warned IP editor in talk page and in edit comment that AIV would be filed if IP editor persisted. AIV now filed. ] (]) 23:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*{{AN3\|a}} ] (]) 20:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for 24 hours) ==
			# {{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\|Abrahamic religions}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Islam90}}

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Previous version reverted to:
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}
	#
	#
	#
	#

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	~~Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:~~		#
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	User is constantly adding a very small minority view, with no sources into the page. -- ] (]) 11:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	all of this because a minor change on ] , also user ] treats others by religious intolerance. to get more information about this article See the ]. --] (]) 12:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
			Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
	:::Another policy of Misplaced Pages is to . Please comment about user actions that reasons. The content of Misplaced Pages is based on policies, and your insertion is breaking ], ] and ]. Regards -- ] (]) 12:11, 14 May 2014 (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 .
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} That's pretty lenient considering the level of ] going on here, but I'm willing to chalk that up to the obvious language barrier. However, if this behaviour persists, a ] of longer duration may prove necessary. ] ]] 12:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
			: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)
	You blocked him just because he is Muslim? --] (]) 15:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Islamophobia}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Derntno}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|608559239\|15:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Note differences to address concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Islamophobia&diff=608547360&oldid=608423108"
	# {{diff2\|608547360\|14:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)}} "I hope this makes it clear."
	# {{diff2\|608423108\|18:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Please read the reference cited before you revert this."
	# {{diff2\|608419703\|18:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "If you read the reference cited, you'll see that Harris cites Cummins with glee, indicating the level of his personal rejection of the idea."

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;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\|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) ==
	Warned before last edit. ] (]) 16:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
	:Derntno has . They made a new, last edit which was mostly copyediting and adding an appropriate source. User is pretty new - april 2014 - so they probably don't fully understand the technicalities in 3rr, but I believe they have ceased edit warring. ] (]) 14:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Eternal derby (Romania)}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|User:DLM 1989}}

	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			#



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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u>
	:Protect this version. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eternal_derby_%28Romania%29&oldid=608565285

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	:Cupa Ligii was a friendly competition. Read this article. http://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/nae-si-onofras-umiliti-de-ciini-in-ghencea-povestea-celei-mai-dure-infringeri-a-stelei-in-fata-lui-dinamo-211247.html

			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.
	:'''After finishing the 1999-2000 season the Red and White (Dinamo) were crowned champions followed a nature friendly competition: Cupa Ligii.'''

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	:Mihai Stere, Dinamo player: Mihai Stere recalled for gsp.ro Ghencea memorable game in which even managed to score the first goal: "I remember the match with Steaua. Demoted with Farul and went to Dinamo. Signed with them for 6 months and was first my match. Even if playing in the League Cup, a match between Steaua and '''Dinamo can never be considered friendly'''.

			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)
	:Steaua used only player who was in trial (like Daniel Munteanu from Universitatea Cluj, Alin Savu from CSM Resita or Alin Biţiş) at Steaua, they have never signed with Steaua, or signed contracts in future years (Mirel Rădoi next year, and Marius Onofraş in 2010).

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	:These players have never had signed contracts with Steaua, automatically were unable to play in a official competitive match, because they had no license to play for Steaua, and the referee had no way to start the game in this situation.<br />

			:]
	:Sorry for my bad English.
			:"""
			:] 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)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			::"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: ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~New~~ ~~York~~ ~~City~~ ~~Department of Correction~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|31.210.104.114}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	<!-- 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\|1268291574\|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# {{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:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<u>Comments:I wanted to leave a message on this editor's talk page, but I saw a warning there about harassment of other editors and I'd rather not deal with that. I did my homework on the edit when I originally made it. Thanks!</u> <br />

			:'''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)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->] (]) 17:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
	As far as I can tell, ] made an edit at {{diff2\|608708588\|16:36, 15 May 2014‎}}, which was not a revert, and made a single revert at {{diff2\|608708588\|16:44, 15 May 2014}}. So definitely no 3RR violation. Looking further back, there has definitely been disagreement/edit war on this one sentence. However, ] has only edited the article one other time which was over six weeks ago. Furthermore, there has been no discussion on the issue on the ] and no warnings were ever issued to ] on edit warring. {{u\|Magnolia677}}, is there more to this situation? What benefit is blocking this specific IP when IP has had only two edits in the last month? ] (]) 17:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
	:The user made two edits today, and it would have been my second revert, yes. As I said, I saw the warning on that user's talk page about harassing behavior and wanted to avoid that. I'll just revert it again, and add a note to the article's talk page. Thanks. ] (]) 17:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
	::Since this is an IP, we cannot assume it's the same person. Looking at contribs, I don't see a connection between BrayLockBoy ‎and any other pages this IP has edited. This event is also over a month ago. There is also no indication that this IP has ever harassed anyone who undid their edits or who attempted to talk with them. Thus, in good faith, I think we should consider those edits to be by a different person and ignore them in dealing with the current situation. Also, personally, I would be more offended by someone reporting me on AN/EW after I made a single revert and without any sort of talk attempts then if someone created an edit warring warning on my talk page - so if you're worried about being badgering, you're giving them more ammunition. At the moment, I don't think you have a case for getting this IP blocked. ] (]) 18:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of Person of Interest episodes}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{user\|Drmargi}} and {{user\|Favre1fan93}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	What we have here are a couple of users who are systematically reverting anyone who tries to put (2014-2015) into various TV show articles. The fall schedules have been announced, yet they insist on preventing posting of the obvious, going so far as to post hidden comments ordering other editors not to add that info. I want an explanation from one or both user ID's as to why they're doing this. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
	: And I'd like to know why this user has used a. my talk page and b. this venue but not the article talk page to address this issue. I'll address this matter there. --] (]) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
	::You wouldn't answer my question on your talk page, so I have very little confidence you will do so on the talk pages of the various articles you're trying to take ownership of. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:I concur with Drmargi. First, neither of us were edit warring. Second, you should have taken this up on the article talk page, not both of our talk pages, and ''then'' here, when I didn't even have a chance to respond to you. As well, wouldn't you think if there was a hidden note there, it's there for a reason? If you actually read ], it states that an article on the 2016 Olympics is fine, but even though we have confirmation that the show will premiere in the fall (again, only fall), there is still a multitude of potential setbacks that could prevent it from airing: Writers strikes, cast disagreements, a presidential speech, (God forbid) a cast member's death. As well, this has been discussed by the Television project and it has been agreed upon that years should not be added until episodes actually air in the television season. If you see it on other pages, then they are in the error, not this page. That is what I would have said to you if you took the proper channels, but since you haven't, I am no longer contributing to this discussion here. If you want to bring it up on the article's talk page, be my guest. - ] (] – ]) 19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268310745\|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
	::If that isn't a crystal-ball-based argument, I don't know what is. You could make the identical argument about ''any'' future scheduled event. Sorry, your argument doesn't work. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
			# {{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:'''
	* How does the above provide an excuse from ]? You ''can'' edit-war after a single edit, as I'm sure you know. The process is ] - which does mean that Bugs ''should'' have been the one who started a discussion on the article talkpage, but then again, Drmargi refused to provide a valid reason for removal of Bugs' edit, so Bugs could be excused for believing that Drmargi had reverted ''in error'' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
	::I don't understand your response. Drmargi did provide a valid response to Baseball Bugs's question, explaining both that there was a hidden note in the article, and that the "source says returning in 2014, not 2014-2015". How then could Baseball Bugs believe that "Drmargi had reverted ''in error''"? --] (]) 05:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


	: DP, did you actually ''read'' my response on my talk page? I refused nothing. The edit had been reverted once already (by Farve1fan), and I reverted a second time. There wasn't a lot more to say than what the FF's edit summary and the hidden note said already. Bugs left a message on my talk page, and I answered the question he asked clearly and directly, as anyone who took the trouble to read my response can see. The trouble is, Bugs wants an answer to a question he didn't ask, and seems to be nursing some old grudge or pissed off about something long ago forgotten by everyone else. No one is edit warring aside from Bugs. This whole situation is utterly farcical, frankly. --] (]) 20:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

	:The two editors are edit-warring against anyone who dares put the obvious (2014-2015) in. And by the way, the guy who said this should be on the article talk page still has not posted on the article talk page. As I had predicted. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	::Also, I'm still waiting for a ''valid'' explanation. The fact that it's not yet September ain't it. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	{{comment}} from an outsider: can't this be resolved peacefully with a compromise? Say, leaving 2014-2015 in, but adding a qualifier such as "predicted"? Because it does seem like a fairly sure prediction, barring exceptional events. — ] <sup>]</sup> 09:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	* This is not a valid edit-warring or 3RR report. Neither editor has breached 3RR and {{u\|Baseball Bugs}} hasn't demonstrated evidence of edit-warring. This is a content dispute so this is not the appropriate venue to discuss. To clarify though, adding "(2014-2015)", "(2014-15)" is a ] violation. The addition of years is based on a recent renewal notice and ] that episodes will air in 2014-15. However, a renewal notice 6 months prior to the next season does not guarantee that episodes will air in a particular year. An examples of this is ], which was renewed in 2012 but did not air any episodes in 2012 or 2013. Episodes have only just been scheduled to air in 2014, 2 years after the renewal. There are many things that can happen between when a series is renewed and when episodes do eventually air. ] was expected to air for a full season in 2010-11 but production was halted twice and the season ended nearly three months before it was expected to end. ], ] and ] were all expected to air for full seasons but were cancelled during their first season, The Playboy Club after only 3 episodes had aired and while several more were scheduled to air. Because of the uncertainty regarding TV series, including years in the section heading when episodes have not been scheduled to air is widely considered by the TV project to be ] and we do not add years because of this. This is why Drmargi and Favre1fan93, as well as other editors (including me) have been removing years from future season headings. It is, unfortunately, something we have to deal with every year around this time when the American TV season finishes. --] (]) 04:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	**Your argument is not valid. CBS has already said it is on the "fall schedule", which translates to sometime during the fall of 2014. What you're really doing is granting ownership of a number of articles to those two editors. Way to go. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 10:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Party~~ of ~~Slovenian~~ ~~People}}~~ ~~<br~~ />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Jazbar}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	Looks like the three-day block for edit-warring was insufficient (see ]), immediately after it expired, the user reverted again, again accompanied by non-arguments and incivility in the edit summary and on the talk page . — ] <sup>]</sup> 08:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Again lies and lies, Hey dude you have issues. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Serbo-Croatian}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|SuperNepoznat}}

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	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:
	#
	#
	#
	#

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- 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 -->
	Note that the revert is not always to the identical diff, but the substance is the same: reinsert the statement to the effect that Serbo-Croatian is a dead language and/or political construction, despite a long-standing consensus
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 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 -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	* Informed in edit summary
	* Informed by another user
	* (last para)

			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)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Run-of-the-mill Balkan nationalist, probably actionable by ] as well. ] (]) 12:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	: I ~~was~~ ~~about~~ to ~~report~~ ~~this~~ ~~user~~ for the ~~same.~~ ~~Notice~~ ~~also~~ ~~the~~ ~~message~~ ~~they~~ ~~left~~ on ~~the~~ ~~article's~~ ~~talk~~ ~~page.~~ ~~It's~~ a ~~typical~~ ~~case~~ of "I ~~know~~ ~~the~~ ~~truth~~, ~~why~~ ~~won~~'t ~~anyone~~ ~~believe~~ ~~me?"~~ ] (]) 12:59, 16 ~~May~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)		*:That is because {{u\|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			:{{u\|Shecose}}, {{tqq\|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	, , and are the same person with same behavior. He also vandalizes other language Misplaced Pages's. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: A case for ]? ] (]) 13:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	: Also note that several of these accounts have been used to vote in a deletion discussion: ]. ] (]) 14:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	::Definitely a ] case:
	::{{userlinks\|SuperNepoznat}}
	::{{userlinks\|Lighthouse01}}
	::{{userlinks\|LightWiki91}}
	::{{userlinks\|WikiLite91}}
	::Thanks, 78.0.196.247. ] (]) 15:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	::: {{userlinks\|77.77.240.138}} seems to be the same user. Apparently it is a static IP. ] (]) 10:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
	::: {{userlinks\|195.222.56.79}} as well. ] (]) 10:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
	::: Could you submit it to ]? The sooner we stop this the better... ] (]) 15:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::: I doubt it will speed up the things, but it's a slow day for admins today. The sockpuppetry is so obvious that I don't doubt the outcome, but there will be a lot of damage to fix afterwards. ] (]) 15:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	The user just added here, but then removed it. Presenting it as further evidence. ] (]) 15:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	You are funny. You can't stop me. ;) --] (]) 15:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
			# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
	: Clear demonstration of bad faith if I've ever seen one. ] (]) 15:45, 16 May 2014 (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."
			# "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)"

	*No it's not bad faith. I registered here just to do good things. But then I saw some articles not WP:NEUTRAL and could not resist to change them. But they you people appeared. Bad faithers.--] (]) 15:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	** Well at least it's ] behaviour if you're implying that you're in some kind of struggle against us to keep us from "stopping" you. I'm not an admin so I can't stop you anyhow. But I can report disruptive behaviour and let admins decide. ] (]) 15:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	The user is now edit warring on ] as well. ] (]) 15:57, 16 May 2014 (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."
	*No such user is in battlefield with me hahahahhahaha... Hate both of you :P --] (]) 16:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	] (]) 11:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
			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.
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			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).
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Chiropractic}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|QuackGuru}}

			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.
	<!-- 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 -->

			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 ].
	User QuackGuru has already been banned before from alt-med articles, as well as warned before for edit warring the alternative medicine articles by administrator '''EdJohnston''' and administrator '''Tiptoety'''. A short caption from Tiptoety's warning to QuackGuru:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<blockquote><p>Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring on Traditional Chinese medicine. While it is obvious that you have intentionally not gone over three reverts in one day, please be reminded that the edit warring policy does not specify a specific number of reverts, and simply engaging in '''a long term pattern of edit warring can result in a block'''. I'll also note that '''if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles''', I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions authorized at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Tiptoety talk 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)</p></blockquote>

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	As administrator Tiptoety's warning makes it really clear, there is not any "''specific amount of edits that you can do each day''". It does not even matter whether you continue that disruptive behaviour on just one or even more articles. QuackGuru has been specifically '''warned about edit warring ''Pseudoscience'' related articles'''. As far as I have been involved in developing some other alternative medicine articles, such as ] or ], I have noticed the same editing behaviour by QuackGuru even there.
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

	Two days ago, QuackGuru was already warned two times by different editors:
	* at 07:13, 14 May (]),
	* and at 17:38, 14 May.
	However, it seems that the same editing pattern keeps repeating with QuackGuru:
	* at 21:02, 9 May 2014 on the article, ''Chiropractic'', QuackGuru made a revert on <nowiki>{{POV}}</nowiki> tag.
	* At 19:18, 14 May 2014, he made his second revert on the very same article, on that very same thing.

	As stated by ]: "...''. The three-revert rule ... is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and '''it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so'''''..."

	However, yesterday QuackGuru also made his 3rd revert, so even the ''bright line'' of three reverts applies.
	# Here you can see him inserting the <nowiki>{{MEDRS}}</nowiki> tags:
	# Here you can see the tags being removed by another user, ]:
	# Finally here, QuackGuru crosses the line and reverts the last edit by DVMt:

	] is extremly clear on this:

	<blockquote><p>The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, '''whether involving the same or different material''', on a single page within a 24-hour period.</p></blockquote>

	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	The issue has been tried to be resolved at the Talk page:
	#
	#
	Also the edit summaries have been well-established. ] (]) 15:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

	;<u>Comments:</u>
	:There is a fine line between "''edit warring''" and "''defending the encyclopedia against pernicious nonsense''". In this case, it would appear that that people are using defective sources, QuackGuru is tagging the defective sources, and other editors are removing the tags rather than correcting the problems. It isn't happening at a rate that violates 3RR. In this case, my inclination is to warn editors that cite alternative medicine sources that such sources are not to be taken seriously and do not meet ]: removing the tag without correcting the issue is disruptive.—](]) 15:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:: The sources in question are not defective and there is currently a discussion about this at WP:MED talk. There is ONE constant in all of these alt-med articles and is QG and his editing practices. A topic ban at this point should be considered seeing how the same issues keep coming up again and again and again. Also, Kww it would be nice to assume good faith in other editors with respect to using reliable sources. We're all here volunteering to make WP better. ] (]) 16:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	::: Agreed. The other editors at TCM and acupuncture are not only conscientious about quality of sources, they are careful to not over-value particular sources. Quack Guru regularly edits in a disruptive and disrespectful manner. Kww, I invite you to pay closer attention to the edits themselves rather than the kind of sweeping generalizations you made. A sincere consideration of the issues and true consensus building is what we need at those articles, not missionary zeal to push a POV.] (]) 16:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:A few comments on report:
	:*Using a 9 May edit to demonstate editor ignoring talk from 14 May - doesn't quite work.
	:*For 3RR you need ''more'' than three reverts, so making three reverts is not a violation of 3RR (but may still be edit warring).
	:*Consecutive reverts count as one revert for 3RR purposes, so now down to two reverts.
	:*The first 'revert' doesn't seem like it's reverting to any previous edit, thus it seems to me like a new edit and not a revert -> down to one revert.
	:*The "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" provided above is a notice of AN/EW discussion. That's not the same. The point of giving a warning is to try to halt behavior to prevent bringing an issue to an administrators' noticeboard. (Though given editor's history, it reasonable to believe that he's familiar with given polices and an edit warring warning may not be necessary.)
	:*In general, article talk pages should be used to discuss article, not behavior of a user. Both of the talk pages linked have section that are more about this editor than about any content. Some editors may view this as a personal attack.
	:I'm not saying it's not edit warring, but when you bring an issue to a noticeboard, you'll have a much stronger case if everything is lined up. ] (]) 16:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

	:] has been notified of the .
	:Herbxue is a ] currently the subject of discussion at ANI. See ].
	:] has been notified of the .
	:DVMt wrote The part "this individual" is referring to me. The editor DVMt has continued his bad behaviour. The paragraph contains the follwing specific sentence written by DVMt: ''I've tried in good faith with you here, but your editing behaviour seems to be congruent with this .'' On the the link is to the page . He also accusing me of and being a meatpuppet of Ersnt and having a .
	:Jayaguru-Shishya has been .
	:] has been indef-blocked previously for disruptive behaviour. See ].
	:Jayaguru-Shishya has a history of disruptive behaviour. See ]. Both Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt are not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. Both editors are unable to collaborate. Take a quick look at the comments on the talk page. See ]. See ]. ] should apply. ] (]) 17:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:: Cherry picking again, are we? Other editors have had concerns with your radical behaviour concerns regarding neutrality again with QG as the primary culprit , more disruptive editing here , tendentious and repeated refusals to answer a fundamental question and on and on. Considering how recent QG was warned regarding his editorial behaviour at alt-med pages, this warrants a serious investigation. ] (]) 17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::] is planning on rewriting the chiropractic article after the . DVMt refuses to moved on. ] (]) 17:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	::::Are you looking through a crystal ball? I've collected 70+ reliable and MEDRS compliant sources and this is my work ground. I'm not proposing anything yet, I'm just organizing references. You seem to have an ownership issues and besides constantly pushing Ernst, you admit to being in contact with him and receiving emails from him . How is that not an act of meat puppetry? You're canvassing offline with a known controversial skeptic and push his research at chiropractic, alternative medicine, acupuncture, etc. ] (]) 17:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Anyone can contact Ernst for a copy of a study. I have read numerous ] compliant reviews and have updated the chiropractic article accordingly. You should stop trying to restore past versions of the article that are no longer relevant. You proposal on the talk page was an old version (you claim it is a ]) of the article that was previously rejected in mainspace. See ]. ] (]) 17:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::I don't think that contacting a controversial author, editing his personal page and pushing his POV on his behalf is 'normal' behaviour. I'm not doing anything other than using talk to discuss salient issues. Like I mentioned above, I've accrued 70+ new reliable sources in my sandbox and I'm actively discussing the problems at chiropractic elsewhere as well to try and build consensus over SPECIFIC issues pertaining to chiropractic. Your interpretation of the events are off-base. Considering you were warned as recently as April 29/14 regarding your editing behaviour, you just seem to keep popping up at ANI over and over and over again. ] (]) 18:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::This is the edit warring noticeboard, and as such, other discussion shouldn't be happening here. Therefore, as no edit warring by QG has been demonstrated, perhaps this should now be closed. This is not the place for fringe pushers to try to get their fringe ideas into an article. -] (]) 18:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::This was a bogus 3RR report but we should leave this open for admins to apply ] for the continued behavior problems and tactics both Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt are guilty of. The sandbox DVMt is referring to is a ]. ] (]) 18:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Roxy, you have made allegations, please provide evidence for your claim, or hold your peace. Not a fake article, quack, unless you've now moved onto trying to removing 70+ new MEDRS sources. Why are you creeping out my sandbox anyways? You're kind of proving my stalking allegation. ] (]) 19:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::What are you on about? No diffs have shown edit warring, what other allegations are you on about. Stop wasting our time. -] (]) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Quack has been warned about edit warring several times and has been cautioned as recently as April 29/14. He is essentially on probation and continues to act in defiance of the recommendations. Recidivism is in play. ] (]) 22:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::Continuing to make false accusations is making you look very silly at this point. ] (]) 05:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

	I tagged a source . We have newer sources on the topic. Using a 30 year outdated old source to argue against newer sources currently used in the article is inappropriate. Removing the tag . The evidence shows User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not contributing constructively and is repeating . ] (]) 05:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Joni Ernst}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|CFredkin}}

	Previous version reverted to:
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#

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

	User is aware of 3RR and of BRD, but chooses to edit war instead, despite attempts to discuss on talk ]. ] (]) 15:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

	The comments above are definitely a mis-characterization of the facts. I initiated the article Talk discussion. The edits posted above were made in response to attempts by this and another editor to circumvent the Talk discussion. I encourage whoever reviews this to read the article edit history and Talk discussion.] (]) 15:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	: 3RR is a red line, and you started the discussion after multiple reverts. There is no need to editwar, just follow ] and you will be fine. ] (]) 16:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:: With edit I removed POV commentary posted on the BLP by another editor. You then largely the content, and initiated the so-called edit war, instead of starting a discussion in Talk as would be indicated by ].] (]) 16:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::Your fourth revert came in the middle of the discussion on the talk page, there is nothing to "mis-characterise" there. Furthermore, making your fourth revert and claiming that it was "per article Talk" when there was ''no agreement'' to make the change is the only instance of any editor trying to "circumvent the discussion". ] (]) 00:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
	::::Hi Tiller. Actually I believe it was you who repeatedly attempted to restore POV content to a BLP without Talk page consensus: , , , .] (]) 01:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Claiming that content is "POV commentary" does not make it so, as you were repeatedly advised on the talk page (not that it's relevant to this noticeboard anyway). Furthermore, you removed content that had been agreed upon by all other editors in a discussion by claiming "per talk page", now you're attempting to claim that when I restored said agreed-upon content it was "without consensus". That's patently untrue as you were the ''only'' editor arguing for the removal of all mention of the negative response to Ernst's comments. ] (]) 01:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
	Once again, I encourage whoever reviews this to examine the edits at this BLP and the Talk page commentary. These editors are essentially waging a sustained POV attack on this BLP and engaging in bullying behavior to steamroll opposition to their POV editing.] (]) 01:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
	:Minutes before accusing others of "steamrolling" on here, you on the page despite being the ''only'' editor in favour of removing the content you want removed and adding the content you want added. Once again, claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is engaging in a "sustained POV attack" just because they disagree with you, then ignoring everyone else on the talk page and claiming "" as you make the edits that ''only you want made'' violates so many policies, not least of all ] and ]. ] (]) 02:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
	:: In reality, I was hopeful that we had effectively reached a compromise earlier today, until you re-ignited the edit war with edit.] (]) 02:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
	::: What amazes me is that it is always the other side who is "wagging POV attacks". That article is off my watchlist, I have better things to do with my wiki time. ] (]) 04:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
	::: There was a discussion ongoing on the talk page and then you decided to circumvent it, claiming "" even though you were the only one who wanted those edits made. And yet, when I restore said agreed-upon content it's apparently me who "re-ignited the edit war". And now I see you've and then . That's really not on. ] (]) 09:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Bosnian language}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|No such user}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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


	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Edit warring with me. --] (]) 15:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	] is possibly sock-puppet of user ]. --] (]) 15:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

	== ] reported by ] (Result:Blocked 36hr ) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|List of Two and a Half Men episodes}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Rswallis10}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|608874857\|19:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608788688 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|608777273\|02:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608757605 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|608740302\|20:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608736655 by ] (])"
	# {{diff\|oldid=608645999\|diff=608736152\|label=Consecutive edits made from 20:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC) to 20:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|608735974\|20:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608645999 by ] (])"
	## {{diff2\|608736152\|20:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608601920 by ] (])"
	# {{diff\|oldid=608561538\|diff=608596851\|label=Consecutive edits made from 20:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC) to 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|608596721\|20:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Series overview */"
	## {{diff2\|608596851\|20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Series overview */"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

	;<u>Comments:</u>

	Despite multiple attempts by various editors to ask this user to explain his /her edits, he/she has continued edit-warring and remains unresponsive. ] (]) 20:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:They have also been edit warring over at ] with the same style of edits and not communicating at all. Diffs can be provided if needed. - ] (] – ]) 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

	* This editor has been problematic at several articles, but mainly at the two already mentioned. Nineteen of this editor's last 25 edits have been reversions, mostly unexplained. After making 3 unexplained reverts in 6 hours I left a 3RR warning on his talk page, clarifying it with a lengthy explanation of why we don't make the edits that he is making. However, it has clearly been ignored. --] (]) 04:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\|36 hours}} for strange edit-warring across multiple articles <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 36hr block) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Once Upon a Time (season 4)}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mmddyy28}}

	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	# after 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: none, through summaries by 4 different users.

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

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

	* User is consistently disregarding ], and is also continuing to be disruptive to other editor's on Misplaced Pages. Full diffs:

	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	# ''']''' ] 22:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

	:There could've been a talk page discussion just for show, but yeah, he needs to back off and actually discuss things. ] (]) 22:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

	::But this user is clearly only interested in now vandalising and hiding themselves from Misplaced Pages, to promote their own personal gain. Action must be taken. ''']''' ] 22:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::What evidence is there of a ]? He's in the wrong, and failing to get the point, but he doesn't appear to be acting in bad faith. Disruptive behavior ]. ] (]) 22:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

	::::I never stated there was a conflict of interest; my use of "their own personal gain" is meant as a way of saying they're doing this to prove their point, and constantly removing this discussion. And it is vandalism if it's continually done, even after being warned. ''']''' ] 22:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::::{{ec}}] is ]. Read ]. He's being ], especially in trying to hide this report, but his behavior still stems from him trying to put what he thinks (however mistakenly) is the truth on this site despite not knowing how things work around here. As bad an edit as it may be, and as disruptively as he's doing it, it's technically in ] and ].
	:::::Has anyone sent him a written message (not a template) explaining what he's doing wrong, and explaining why we have those rules? ] (]) 22:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	::::::None have been sent from today's edit war, but his constant readdition of the episode table from a few days ago was removed by him and no actually answered in anyway, instead he started moaning at me for monitoring pages on my watchlist.--] (]) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

	::I had a problem with him doing similar things, once another user stepped in he began to remove warnings on his page and despite more warnings to stop and to not personally attack other users(]). If he doesn't get his way he begins to delete messages of other peoples as well as his own talk page, ignores warnings and just generally just tries to annoy the people who are reverting his edits per any wikipedia policy. I also took the opportunity to include my warnings to him, including a link to the edit on his talk page as evidence.--] (]) 22:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::] allows users to remove warnings from their pages. He is being ], but he's still acting in (a totally ignorant and disruptive) ]. ] (]) 22:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
	::::If he is acting in good faith then why won't he relay a valid source like the edit summaries have asked?--] (]) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

	:::::Since when are good faith and competence the same thing? I've already said that his behavior is disruptive, heck, I'll risk someone fussing about ] at me for saying he's been a downright idiot so far, but his actions (from his perspective) are meant to improve the site. ] (]) 22:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

	:::Why report someone who was acting in good faith, trying to make Misplaced Pages more accurate? I was simply trying make an edit that I thought was correct, after reading something in the internet, that the show's creators confirmed. "Deleting my own talk page?" That was an accident. I didn't purposely delete that to stop receiving warnings. I tried to get my talk page back, but failed, until ditto51 kindly stepped in and got it back for me. I joined Misplaced Pages two months ago, and I don't yet understand or know all the rules. Possibly someone could message them to me so I can better understand and follow them in the future. I would also like to thank those who kindly re-reviewed rules, and stuck up for me. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::::{{ec\|3}}Because you're being disruptive and otherwise doing everything wrong. That's why you were reported here instead of ]. And while I'm trying to argue that you are ignorant of the rules, you're making a really dumb mistake in continuing to remain ignorant of those rules and refusing to listening when other people when they try to explain them. I'm working on a message for you right now that I strongly advise you listen to. ] (]) 22:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

	::::You were reported for violating several Misplaced Pages policies, one including the edit-warring policy, which was delivered to you at least once or twice, which is more than enough. It has zero to do with how long you've been on the website. Yes, you edits were in good faith, but consistently ignoring notes and talk page discussions, it does not reflect well on your behalf. So instead of edit-warring multiple times, and denying you were doing so, you should've asked about things. We consistently told you your edits were violating ], etc. and you continued to ignore them. And continually removing the report shows badly and poorly on your part. ''']''' ] 22:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

	further evidence against him, I think that may be the second or third time he deleted this discussion--] (]) 11:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\|36 hours}} <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

	==] reported by ] (]) (Result: )==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Jessie}}

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|67.174.173.239}}

	'''Time reported:''' 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

	* Attempts to communicate:
	#
	#

	Slow motion edit warring adding inappropriate-to-this page and false info to a disambiguation page. This looks now to be deliberately disruptive. —] (]) 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|User talk:Jimbo Wales}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Smallbones}}

	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	#

	<!-- 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> Smallbones seems to think he has CheckUser and Sockpuppet Investigation powers that enable him to tell if a new user is a banned user or not. He shows an utter disregard for the 3RR convention.<br />

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->] (]) 06:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

	* ] and ] aside, you too were edit-warring to include inappropriate comments on someone's talkpage ... there's no beneficial purpose for those comments anywhere on the project, but yet you persisted past breaking the same rule you're filing against someone else? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

	* That's right, 2601:B:BB80:E0:39E8:8E4C:FD09:D212 is a ban-evading sock. Reported at ]. See also ] (same troll/sock, slightly diff IP range). ] (]) 11:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.

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

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

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

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

"I "tried to delete me reporting them""

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

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

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

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

The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level

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

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

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

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

I notify the user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: