Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:26, 21 July 2014 edit2over0 (talk | contribs)17,247 edits →User:Jmh649 (Doc James) reported by User:Technophant (Result: ): note additional reverts← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:12, 9 January 2025 edit undoRed-tailed hawk (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators32,708 edits →User:Shecose reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: ): advise 
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 = 250 |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&#039; 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|Mesut Özil}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Maurice Flesier}}


;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|616895240|10:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Özil is Turkish origin German."
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|616904479|12:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Some fixes?? To remove ethnicity, not an satisfactory explanation."
# {{diff2|616922814|15:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 616913338 by ] (]) Before the back, please discuss on the talk page!" # {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|616944765|18:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 616939465 by ] (])" # {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
*
This is three days later, but there is still no consensus here.


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|616913374|14:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|616993409|02:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* July 2014 */ +"


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


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


;<u>Comments:</u>


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
Editor is aware of 3RR, ], ]. ] (]) 02:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:A solution to this problem was "German-Turkish footballer". I agree that the user has breached openpara, mosbio and 3rr. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 04:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. There is an ongoing report at ANI about Walter's behavior generally. Regarding the 3RR report here, it's a bit hard to evaluate ''other'' editors' conduct on the page because there's so much activity on the article, both by named accounts and IPs, and some of it involves content disputes, whereas some of it is just obvious vandalism.--] (]) 14:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:: I made a single revert there over the time period so please do not cloud the issue Bbb23. The issue is simple: the editor made four reverts here trying to impose a specific version of the article against four separate editors: two registered and two anon. The editor then singled me out on the talk page as I was the only editor involved. This is a clear-cut case. If the editor is not blocked I would expect a detailed explanation as to why this editor can get away with violating 3RR even after being reported, and "stale" is not detailed. ] (]) 03:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
* {{AN3|s}} - ] <small>(])</small> 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
: Don't you dare! Block him. I get blocked for making four edits with guidelines to support my edits with an anon who doesn't explain the edits being made, while this editor makes four reverts against two editors and two anons, and the latter three were all clearly explained. I engage in talk page while this editor make personal attacks on talk page. This is another reason why it's obvious that edit warring is fine in the eyes of some new editors. ] (]) 04:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
== ] (Result: Both warned) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ramadan}} </br>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hajj}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Please speak with ] about his edits on ] and ]. He is edit warring on both. The main discussion is at the talkpage of ], where he has been active in the last 4 posts. So far only 2 editors have posted in them, disagreeing. He is aggressive and unpleasant, and simply misunderstands ]. Please see his userpage that I suspect him to be less than neutral on the subject, as in ]. ] (]) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
# (31 December 2024)
::The cheek, so If I am edit warring what exactly are you doing. Beware of ] Here is your history it is strange that you come and say they should talk to me. I did my fair share but my friend you are hiding behind 3rr to ] you have not used the talk page to settle anything, only to edit how you want, and then hold a discussion (reminds me of a certain country) See Your own user page, talk about Pot calling kettle black LOL. --] (]) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
# (6 January 2024)
::: I am active replying to you on the talkpages of those 2 articles, with over 20 edits today. Is that how you proof all your arguments?
# (7 January 2025)
:::: I know ], but I also know that I edit according to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, which you are misunderstanding and misusing, supposedly to make a ] connected with your ]. ] (]) 20:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
# (8 January 2025)
:::Not sure your point, Are you not engaged in the edit war you are reporting? Or am I edit warring with your twin? Do you know what this space is for? So why are you discussing ] here? there is a dispute or request for comments for that kind of stuff. And I also have "suspect" about you per your colorful userpage. Anyone can make accusations, making mature points is another thing. So per your contributions you have done more edit warring than me, and on two articles got your version inserted, yet you tell me about Edit warring.? --] (]) 20:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: You can not remove sourced information without good reason, and your reasons are challenged by 2 editors. They actually have been proven wrong already. That leaves us with you edit warring for the sake of edit warring. So why shouldn't I tell you about edit warring? ] (]) 21:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::If my reasons were so wrong why then did you have to go and change this ? So you were reverting me and never check out my objections. Clearly I was not wrong. Now Two editors means nothing, what counts is the ability to make a case using Policy. We do not ] and the talk page shows clearly who started the off key remarks, imagine lecturing me about what I know. I never did that, I simply copy and pasted policy for you to see. This nonsense of "You do not know what you are talking about" is for teenagers, it is only you saying so, argue by rationale not "You are wrong", that is just below me. Now the question for bonus prizes, Since you know about Misplaced Pages, What does wikipedia say about handling Disputes? Did you follow that? '''What is Wiki policy for avoiding Edit war show the people here the steps you took to avoid it.'''If I am guilty you are equally so. --] (]) 21:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::For the record this is the remark that started the whole thing going South: No idea why this remark was made? Who is this guy to talk for so many other editors?--] (]) 21:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}}. {{U|Debresser}} and {{U|Inayity}}, you are both warned that if you continue this battle in the article, you may be blocked without any further notice or warning, regardless of whether you breached ]. The only reason you're not being blocked now is because you both skirted 3RR by the skin of your collective teeth. Debresser, if you want to report disruptive conduct, take it to another noticeboard. If you want to report edit warring, then file an appropriate report with a proper header and diffs.--] (]) 21:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:: Bbb23 (or other willing editors) I posted this way because I wanted somebody to explain to Inayity what he is doing, not to have him punished. He should be stopped from removing information he doesn't like. He continues with , which is so wrong because 1. it was discussed 2. the info is well sourced 3. he is ] Misplaced Pages. Can you explain this to him? If not, where should I take this? ] (]) 09:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:::If you want to raise Inayity's conduct but not have him sanctioned for edit warring, then take it to ]. Make sure you're clear what you're asking for. I make no prediction as to whether such a report will be received favorably.--] (]) 21:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: Thank you. Yes, raising his conduct was my specifically stated intention. I have some experience at WP:ANI, and am not favorably impressed with that forum. I was convinced the edit warring noticeboard should be the more logical venue for this issue. ] (]) 18:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lo que la vida me robó}} <br />'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|La malquerida (telenovela)}}<br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mario252}}


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


<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 />


] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
: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)
#
#
#


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Hello, sought to punish this person, because I'm tired of explaining about their issues, all it does is ignore my messages and delete them, which seems to me a lack of respect by the user, the same user if read messages but ignores them. On the issues generated wars and explain my reasons, but he did not seem to care nothing and continue with the same, nor cares to reach consensus. I have placed a complaint , but I see that so far no decision was taken, and as time passes the user continues to fall in edit wars with me and as I have tried to explain in his discussion but is useless.--<b>]</b> ] 06:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:Hey someone can address my request, please?.--<b>]</b> ] 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
* {{AN3|b|31 hours}} - ] <small>(])</small> 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: decline) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Operation Protective Edge}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Al-Andalusi}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Previous version reverted to:
# {{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 the user's reverts: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
# {{diff2|617321532|14:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Casualties and losses */ remove opinion and OR" this revert of this edit
# {{diff2|617205265|17:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* top */ partial revert of Irondome's change" revert of this edit




<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
# {{diff2|617332163|16:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
The article is part of ] and under 1RR. I have asked the user to revert himself. ] (])/] 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
An edit war? ] (]) 18:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:Are you going to revert yourself?--] (])/] 18:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
::And which edit is that? I'm asking because myself and the rest of the involved editors have not been part of a dispute let alone an "edit war". ] (]) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:::You made two reverts of two different users.You may undo your last revert ] (])/] 19:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
::::The last one is in agreement with ]. I fail to see the issue here. ] (]) 19:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::The issue is you made two reverts to ] article .--] (])/] 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
'''Comment'''. Shrike, could you do me the courtesy of examining the 4 cases I cited I'm still not certain I understand this rule, but since you do, tell me why (a) those are not examples of what you consider to be edit-warring on the same page (b) if they are, why did you ignore them? ] (]) 20:31, 17 July 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))
::::].If you think that someone else broke 1RR please report him.Don't ask any one to do you your job for you--] (])/] 05:55, 18 July 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 .
:::::Absolutely no. I don't want to stain my excellent record as someone who refuses to take people to arbitration. I didn't ask people to do my job. I did the work, and asked for a judgement. 3 major breaking news articles were written because editors from different POV, once on my suggestion, agreed not to use the IR as an instrument to gain editorial advantages. All the article builders broke it on those three pages, and no one was reported because we peons committed to the composition of articles, and not I/P warring games, know you just cannot write those articles and not break the rule, because it means that after an alteration, everything else all editors can do for 24 hours is just pile in more information regardless of the dissonance and unreadability this would cause. I don't chase 1R infractions or aste time combing someone's contribs to find if I can get him off the page, and make life comfortable for one of two POVs: I look to the merit of each edit, and if it is good or sound, I approve. If it is lousy, I mark it for correction, hoping someone else sights it if I can't revert it. The rule exists to enable article creation, not to create obstacles and enmity among collegues.] (]) 07:42, 18 July 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)
*{{AN3|n}}. This is getting tiresome. On a narrow technical level, if Al-Andalusi had not stated in the edit sumary that the first edit was a partial revert, other than the change of the word "claimed" to "announced", I wouldn't even notice it. Plus, I don't even know which edit of {{U|Irondome}}'s, Al-Andalusi is partly reverting. The second diff is clearly a revert. So, thee may not even be a 1RR violation here, not sure. There is no exemption from 1RR because an article is a current event that is being heavily edited by many, many users with an eye to improving the information and the sources. For one thing, it's hard for an administrator to sort out that kind of content analysis. God knows I'm relatively aggressive when it comes to blocking editors for violating 3RR or for violating 1RR in contravention of ArbCom sanctions, but even I am not favorably impressed by these reports. I strongly urge ''anyone'' who wants to file such a report about this particular article to go to ]. Again, I'm not taking any action here (I officially alerted Al-Andalusi of the sanctions), although another administrator is free to do whatever he or she deems appropriate as I'm not closing the report.--] (]) 21:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
::I have fixed the report.
*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
*:
*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


{{AN3|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{AN3|d}}. Bbb23 says everything I would say. - ] <small>(])</small> 14:34, 18 July 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: No violation) ==


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ferdinand I of Romania}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|FactStraight}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
]</br>
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<u>The "editing war" turns grotesque in my opinion. I think it is due time that you put an end to such destructive attitudes which scare away in disgust any decent editor: already 10x time spent waging editing wars than usefully editing...</u> <br /> ] (]) 05:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:I haven't checked the page (nor does it appear that I will have time to), but I don't see any diffs. {{nao}} ]&nbsp;] 06:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
::FactStraight has only made one edit to the article since it was created. ] (]) 13:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
# {{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 edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1979 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
also<br>
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."
{{pagelinks|1980 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1981 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1982 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1983 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1984 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1985 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1986 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1987 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1988 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1989 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1990 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1991 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1992 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1993 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|2014 International V8 Supercars Championship}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Therock9998}}


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"


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


== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts (just on ] the others are much the same):
# 01:45, July 17, 2014
# 00:01, July 18, 2014
# 01:13, July 18, 2014
# 02:56, July 18, 2014
# 07:31, July 18, 2014
# 08:19, July 18, 2014
and now
# 09:02, July 18, 2014


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
On going attempts to get involved user to cease damaging table coding. Evaded a block when applied as an ] by establishing this User ID. I hesitate to say Sock Puppetting as this is plainly a new user and would not understanding either the terminology or that it is considered poor etiquette. Refuses to communicate with other editors. Am at a complete loss, and I have probably overstepped the line myself attempting and tender my apologies. ] (]) 09:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
#
:No he or she is just being disruptive and a vandal. On going vandalistic edits across a couple of dozen Australian motorsport articles. --] (]) 09:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|two weeks}}. I also blocked {{user2|110.174.5.183}} for two weeks who is obviously the same person. The named account was created just shortly after the IP was blocked before.--] (]) 14:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page deleted and salted) ==


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Jake Borras}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Jhakeyborras}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
;Previous version reverted to:


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.
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617449075|12:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|617448660|12:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|617446923|12:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|617446501|12:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617444416|12:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Notifying author of deletion nomination for ]"
# {{diff2|617446463|12:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Notifying author of deletion nomination for ]"
# {{diff2|617447202|12:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|617448865|12:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Notifying author of deletion nomination for ]"


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


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


:]
;<u>Comments:</u>
:"""
:] 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)
Constant removal of templates when user is creator of page that is being templates. ] (]) 12:55, 18 July 2014 (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 ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
::Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
::Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
::I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
::3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with ] (]) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}}. This report is a mess. ] (]) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment ] (]) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{re|NotQualified}} Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--] (]) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. ] (]) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
*::::# I add templates to an article with faults
*::::# The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
*::::# I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
*::::# They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
*::::# I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
*::::# Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
*::::# I notify the user
*::::# I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
*::::# Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
*::::# You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
*::::I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
*:::::That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
*:::::I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
*:::::I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. ] (]) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
*{{AN3|p}} A user trying to persistently create an autobio. The article has been deleted three times in rapid succession and now salted. --] (]) 13:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
;Page: {{pagelinks|Jose Antonio Vargas}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|2601:9:8180:E85:5977:B6:354C:5E2F}}


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


;Diffs of the user's reverts: '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
# {{diff2|617271230|05:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617271067 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268272867|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
# {{diff2|617313191|13:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617282169 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268269093|23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|617326832|15:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{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."
# {{diff2|617396901|01:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617364972 by ] (]) Please stop edit warring Gamaliel"
# {{diff|oldid=617431684|diff=617457234|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC) to 14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|617456390|14:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|617457234|14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|617370999|21:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])" # {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


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


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


:'''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)
;<u>Comments:</u>


:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
The user has been edit-warring to put similar material into this page for a couple of days. He's reverting against multiple users, including me. The material has ] issues and sourcing issues. Although one solution is to semi-protect the article, the IP is the only one who is battling; thus, that seems unfair to any other non-autoconfirmed user. Although I did not include even earlier edits to the article, the IP is a ]. ] (]) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. ] (]) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. ] (]) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. ] (]) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at ], not one as you claim. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. ] (]) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article ']' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
* {{AN3|b|31 hours}}. Let me or this board know if they IP-hop. - ] <small>(])</small> 14:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: bb 24 hours) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|International Young Democrat Union}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mfs104}} and {{userlinks|92.225.129.161}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
The nature of this battle is too complex for individual difference links. I refer the reviewer to {{ph|International Young Democrat Union}}: the edit summaries alone indicate a failure of the two editors to try to reach ].
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- 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 -->
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
I am not involved in this edit war, and have just observed it as a third party. No evidence either party has tried to resolve the issue through any type of discussion.


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


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


Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{AN3|b|24 hours}}. Both are clearly edit warring, thank you WikiDan61. Misplaced Pages is not the place for an external group to hash out their internal differences. - ] <small>(])</small> 15:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


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


;Page: {{pagelinks|Shawinigan Handshake}} '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|67.193.18.194}}


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617368020|20:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Here's the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/Aline_Chr%C3%A9tien Instead of deleting relevant, factual information how about helping out!"
# {{diff2|617402370|02:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Just add the friggin footnote. I don't know how. Never donating $ again to wikipedia."
# {{diff2|617471734|16:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Here's the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/Aline_Chr%C3%A9tien I do not know how to add it as a footnote in the article. Helping rather than undoing would seem to be benificial."
# {{diff2|617476027|17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "It's worth noting because an attempted assassination is going to affect your state of mind when a protester breaks your RCMP security detail. It's obvious a piece relevant to this situation."
# {{diff2|617478080|17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "The link is good enough for this Misplaced Pages article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Andr%C3%A9_Dallaire Deletionists are the bain of casual editors like me."


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{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|617477618|17:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
# {{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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|617478072|17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Proposed addition is synthesis */ new section"


;<u>Comments:</u>


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Also edit warring on ] ] <sup>]</sup> 17:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}}.--] (]) 19:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Page: {{pagelinks|Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Harmony944}}


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


This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
# {{diff2|617477198|17:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Section break */"
# {{diff2|617481467|18:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "If we can't remove your list, you can't add a section break. Keep it all together"
# {{diff2|617482506|18:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Section break */"
# {{diff2|617486921|18:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Section break */"
# {{diff2|617487926|18:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617487780 by ] (]) You're more focused on minor stuff than providing an actual argument. Grow up"
# {{diff2|617488411|19:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617488125 by ] (]) "Refactoring improves nonfunctional attributes of the software" Stop edit warring"


== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617481789|18:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|617483296|18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on ]. (])"


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}
# {{diff2|617488125|18:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617487926 by ] (]) stop refactoring my talk page contributions"


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


I added a section break to an extremely long thread on this article's talk page. Harmony944 has repeatedly removed this section break because he claims it disrupts the flow, despite my constant requests that he not modify my contributions to the talk page per ]. He has kept at this. —] (]) 19:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:First, it takes two to edit war. His section break was him putting half of a comment on top, then the section break, and then the second half. It was part of THE SAME DISCUSSION. Unless removing a section break and removing a redundant signature is a "drastic change", there is no base to these claims. It's a 21 character removal. That's MINISCULE--] (]) 19:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
::I attempted to start a new line of discussion with my edit, and there were two separate lines of discussion going on. One to Shadowbird and the other asking why it was such a big deal. And a section break is needed for these long and winding threads. You refactored my contributions to the talk page without my consent. That's not allowed.—] (]) 19:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:::No you didn't. It was the same discussion, don't kid yourself. It was the same line of discussion. The three of us were in the same discussion. It doesn't matter how long the discussion is, it has to be kept together unless you want to screw with people so they can't pick apart your argument bit by bit so it can look like you're "winning". You're not, and this report is a sham.--] (]) 19:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:::The section break was solely for the sake of Ryulong's complaining about the fact that Harmony944 and I were debating his call for a change. It did not serve a purpose except to separate the complaining from everything else, and I personally consider the section break unnecessary. It had nothing to do with actual discussion of the requested change; it merely existed for Ryulong's complaints. Deleting the section break would then be justifiable. I believe this report to be unwarranted.--] (]) 19:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
::::The page has expanded by 3 times since I began the discussion. A break is necessary to make it easier to keep contributing even though it's likely going to end soon. There is no reason to refactor mine or anyone's contributions to a talk page, particularly when you merged two comments made an hour apart in one of your edits. I meant for them to be separate. You have no right to merge them.—] (]) 19:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
::::And now Harmony944 is by pasting one of the warnings I gave him that has no basis when applied to me.—] (]) 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::''Excuse me?'' No basis? You disrupted the conversation when you put 2 successive warnings on my page because you didn't like what I was saying on the Megaforce talk page. You couldn't handle being wrong so you started threatening to get me blocked. That's why you're here, isn't it?--] (]) 19:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::I gave you the warnings because they were applicable to your modifications of my talk page contributions without my express consent, regardless if it's just a new section header. I told you that wasn't allowed when you cut out the lists twice.—] (]) 19:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to say, of all the ] things I have seen on Misplaced Pages, this has to be in the top 10. ] (]) 19:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:This edit war or the discussion that led to it?—] (]) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb|48 hours}}. The blocks are for edit warring. However, the moves discussion on the talk page is appalling.--] (]) 20:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Aaron Craft}}
# "Lady Saso: New Section"
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Jcam6}}
# "Lady Saso: Reply"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
;Previous version reverted to:
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.
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617537797|04:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=617536816|diff=617536869|label=Consecutive edits made from 03:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) to 03:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|617536847|03:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|617536869|03:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|617536701|03:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""


In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617536876|03:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"


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


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>
User was blocked as a vandalism-only account. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 04:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Oathkeeper}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Darkfrog24}}

Previous version reverted to:


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: , , and

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

Darkfrog by Nyttend less than three weeks ago for edit-warring ''within the same article''. Darkfrog24 refuses to discuss in talk without reverting in her preferred version of the article first. Every other editor, with the exception of DonQuixote, Donlago and myself, have left the article due to her tendentious nature. She keeps insisting that our consensus is wrong, that the RfC closure opinion was wrong and incomplete…the list goes on. It doesn't matter what any of us say, she just reverts her version in and tells us we are all wrong in article discussion. ''This has been going on for almost two months'', and it has to stop.<br>

The rest of us just want to stabilize the article and ensure that the content added can help it get to GA- and FA-status at some point. Traditionally, I'd be here requesting a block to protect the article. That said, Darkfrog has already stated on her talk page that the initial block by Nyttend wouldn't really have affected her, as per her claim that (). So, a block would have no effect on her behavior. She'd come off the block and continue edit-warring, as she has done here. I think a topic ban regarding any ''Game of Thrones'' series articles is called for at this point. Thoughts? - ] (]) 07:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|one week}} Due to the continued disruption, if you believe a topic ban is necessary you'll need to raise it on ] with evidence. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 08:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:Very well. I'll take a wait-and-see attitude after she returns to the Project. Maybe the break will add some perspective for her. Fingers are crossed. And thanks. - ] (]) 14:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected for 10<sup>48</sup> Planck times) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|Acupuncture}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Technophant}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617416455|05:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Restore removal by User:QuackGuru and added second paper from Journal_of_Pain with impact factor of 3.24, add NPOV tag"
# {{diff|oldid=617420457|diff=617424138|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC) to 07:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|617424045|07:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ add RS secondary "synthesis" statement from abstract"
## {{diff2|617424138|07:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ ce"
# {{diff2|617442899|11:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ QuackWatch doesn't meet MEDRS, or even RS, rm"
# {{diff2|617462528|15:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "clarify AMA's position"
# {{diff2|617549682|06:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617489583 by ] (]) restored with corrected url (copy/paste error)"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617553044|07:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|617552850|07:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Edit warring */ new section"

;<u>Comments:</u>

* Previous warning by another editor removed . Notice of discretionary sanctions . Discussion of edits . Discussion at ANI . ] (]) 08:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

* This editor looks an awful lot like ]. Exact same behavior, paranoia, topics, assumptions of bad faith, attacking other editors, etc.. -- ] (]) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:*If that's what you believe, {{U|BullRangifer}}, then add the editor to the SPI, along with diffs, of course, backing up your assertions.--] (]) 17:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

* User:Technophant restored the text again. See . ] (]) 18:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

* Could someone clarify what material the diffs above labeled #2 and #4 are reverts of? <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 19:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:: It looks like the original addition of substantially similar text in diff 2 was added by Technophant , then wholesale reverted before trying the text above. The text in link 4 appears to have originated , then been edit warred and . This is probably better treated as a case of tendentious EW than as a simple 3RR. Thank you for taking a look, ]. Note that I am ] here. Also note that the article is under ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 19:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:::], this doesn't look like a 3RR violation to me, because as 2over0 says, there's too much time lag. That, combined others' active reversion of Technophant's edits and with the active discussion at the talk page, makes me think that blocking anyone at this point will be counterproductive; I'm going to impose 86400 seconds of protection. ] (]) 22:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
::::Thanks ] for the analysis. I agree that it is tendentious...hopefully the user will take this as a warning. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 00:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The last time edit warring was reported here for the acupuncture article was a short time ago back in May. See ]. ] (]) 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Malaysia Airlines Flight 17}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|TheAirplaneGuy}}

<!-- 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. -->

User appears to have reverted 13 times in the past 24 hours.

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

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

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

Just going out and don't have time to add all thirteen (!) diffs. Please talk nicely to this user and block if necessary. ] (]) 11:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

:I've reported you as well for personal attack. Wasn't edit warring as well, just taking out bad edits ] ] 11:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|one day}} and I've notified both of discretionary sanctions. The block as for the 3RR violation only no prejudice on the result of the ANI discussion. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Victoria Nuland}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Iselilja}}

<!-- 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> I have been trying to report on a matter of public interest regarding multiple versions of the famous leaked phone call between Nuland and Pyatt. A number of users seem to have little or no problem with this, or sought only reasonable tweaks. But a determined group of users including Iselejla, NazariyKaminski, and TheRedPenOfDoom have systematically and repeatedly deleted all reference to this information, using a variety of questionable appeals to WP editorial policies that have been explicitly addressed after each deletion. The most recent reversion took place in less than 60 seconds after I posted a newly-edited version of the information together with a friendly appeal in Talk that we should discuss any further edits and agree a joint version, in Talk, before further editing the main page. This had no effect, and produced no discussion or justification for the instant deletion. Since this is a matter bearing on the Ukrainian war, it is hard to remain confident in the "good faith" policy of WikiPedia when posts about presumed spying activity ("tradecraft") are being reported. ] (]) 17:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}}. One revert? You're kidding, right? Perhaps you should listen to the other editors about the content, although I express no opinion on it.--] (]) 18:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|List of people who have run across Australia}}
;Users being reported:
:{{userlinks|Mark Heins}}
:{{userlinks|Markdabner}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:

The entire page history can be viewed

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
{{u|Mark Heins}}:
{{u|Markdabner}}:

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

;<u>Comments:</u>

Give me a minute, TW won't load the reverts, going to have to manually add them. ] ] ߷ ] 18:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
<br>
Got it built, this edit war has gone on since 10 July, I was going to request page protection, but neither user seems willing to communicate to build consensus on this article. This ] but this is the proper venue for this issue. ] ] ߷ ] 18:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}}.--] (]) 19:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|IjonTichyIjonTichy}}

<!-- 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:
#
# (article under 1RR)

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

Diff of warning of 1RR restrictions and discretionary sanctions:
<blockquote>
("The article ] ... is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are:

All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under ''']''' (one ] per editor per article ''per 24 hour period''). When in doubt, assume it is related....

Editors who ... violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked '''without warning''' by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence....
")
</blockquote>
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: In a clear breach of 1RR, on a contentious article, IjonTichyIjonTichy deleted the same material twice. Within minutes. That is unacceptable.

He is also I believe incorrect (and for example equates attributed non-quote statements with "quotes"). But that is a secondary issue.

This is just the sort of problematic 1RR violation that makes the editing of articles in this area so difficult, and the reason they were subjected to 1RR in the first place.] (]) 22:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

<br />

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

:I was under the (possibly incorrect) impression my first edit did not constitute a revert, and thus I believed (possibly incorrectly) that my second edit was the one revert I was allowed.
:I have no intention to revert that material again within at least the next 24 hours, or 48 hours (and extremely likely much, much longer than that). This particular article does not interest me that much (although I am sad for the losses of all the families involved, on all sides of the conflict). Instead, I'd like to explain my view. Just because something appears in a reliable source, does not immediately imply that we are obligated to cite it in the encyclopedia. We (WP editors) are not automatic robots - we are supposed to, indeed we are required, to exercise judgment. (Otherwise we could all be replaced by artificial intelligence software that would edit WP harmoniously and peacefully without any editorial disagreements.) Please read very carefully the WP policies on ] and ]. So-called "off the record" statements attributed to "anonymous officials" should be treated, in my view, with extreme suspicion, to the point where they deserve zero ], regardless of the nationality, race, religion, ethnicity, race, socio-economic status, geographic location (or any other factor) of the "person" who is alleged to have made the statement. Thanks and regards, ] (]) 22:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

::You suggest here that you did not understand that your first deletion of the text added by another editor was a "revert".
::First, that's pretty basic. When an editor adds material, and you delete it (or hit "undo), of course that is a revert.
::Second, you are an experienced editor, with thousands of edits.
::Third, you seemed to understand perfectly well that a "first revert" is in fact a revert, when you brought to the AN/I noticeboard two years ago.
::Fourth, the 1RR tag clarifies, with an inline link, what "revert" means. ] (]) 22:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. I've formally alerted Ijon of the discretionary sanctions. I've also formally alerted ]. Indeed, given the number of reverts Catherine has made to the article today, it puzzles me, {{U|Epeefleche}}, why you are not reporting her. I'm not taking any other action at this point, but I'm leaving it open to another administrator to take action if they wish.--] (]) 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

::Bbb23 -- thanks. As to your question, the answer is that I had only today gotten as far as looking at the 1RR problem with Ijon. And one of his two reverts was a revert of material I added.
::But looking as you suggest at the further edits in the article, I see that those of the very active Catherine appear to be a complete mess -- whatever other problems they include, they also appear to include insertion of whole blocks of text that are uncited, which is problematic in an article of this nature. I support whatever action is deemed appropriate vis-a-vis Catherine (I'm off to grab a bite right now, so I won't have the time to parse here changes/additions, but hopefully my endorsement of your suggestion that her edits be scrutinized closely will move things in the right direction). ] (]) 23:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:::{{U|Epeefleche}}, who said you were allowed to eat? Although I have the authority to block someone without warning, I generally prefer not to, particularly, as in this case, I would have had to do so spontaneosly. Let's just hope now that she's been warned, her contributions will be more carefully monitored by those editors active on that and other related pages. Although I didn't fully analyze them, they appeared to be very disruptive above and beyond the number of reverts.--] (]) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:*I should add, {{U|IjonTichyIjonTichy}}, a self-revert of your second revert would go some ways to showing good faith.--] (]) 23:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

::: Thank you ] for the friendly suggestion. I wish I would have thought of it myself. I appreciate your feedback here and on my talk page.

::: Dear ], the diff that you provided to my edit from two years ago was (a) made under entirely different circumstances and context and is entirely irrelevant to the particular circumstances and context under consideration here, and (b) made two years ago, and thus ancient history. In other words, you'll need to try harder to bring more recent evidence (much more recent than two years ago) that shows that I am prone to edit warring. Good luck with that, because such evidence does not exist.

::: Furthermore, ], your edit summary reverting my edit appears to accuse me of editing in order to push a POV, and now you appear to be accusing me of lying. In both cases, it appears you (a) may have failed to assume good faith, and (b) may have rushed to make some serious accusations based on flimsy (actually, non existent) evidence.

::: Additionally, you appear to be conveniently ignoring the view that statements attributed to "anonymous officials" speaking "off the record" are highly detrimental to the encyclopedia and make a complete mockery of WP. And especially when such statements are made in highly controversial articles. And especially when they are made in the lead section. And especially when these citations may also be in violation of the BLP of the persons who have been accused by some conveniently "unnamed" source to have committed very serious crimes.

Best regards, ] (]) 23:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

::::Ijon -- my point about your AN/I complaint had (I would have thought would be obvious) nothing to do with the substance of the AN/I. Your comments at the AN/I -- along with the other three points I make, above -- simply brings into question your assertion that you do not know what a revert is. Since it appears that as far back as two years ago, per that complaint, you understood quite well that a "first" revert is indeed a revert. ] (]) 05:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|not}}. Unless I'm missing a significant detail, IjonTichy has self-reverted and has made no further edits to the article in question. There's nothing stopping y'all from having a cordial discussion at the article's talk page. ] ] 14:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Talk:Yank Barry}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|AdmiralMeow}}

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|71.169.164.186}}



<!-- 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. -->
IP + SPA adding same ] violation to talk page 6x times. Note the subject of the article recently filed (and then dismissed) a lawsuit against 4 wikipedia editors.

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:
IP
#
#
#
AdmiralMeow
#
#
#

<!-- 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: (Warning was for BLP vio)

<!-- 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: No discussion for BLP vio.
*{{AN3|b}} AdmiralMeow and his IP for one month. In the future, please post the required notice of this discussion to the talk pages of the reported accounts. I rarely block without that notice, but I made an exception in this case.--] (]) 00:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Article:''' {{pagelinks|Electronic harassment}} <br />
'''Editor:''' {{userlinks|Renee00124}}

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

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

Several editors have reverted this editor's changes to the article in question and all have warned him as required. I then realised I was reverting his ''fourth'' revert (five if you include the original disruptive edit). ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 11:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b| 48 hours}}. Four reverts, not including the original addition. Was warned prior to the last revert. ] ] 14:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::It should also be noted that per the discussion at WP:FTN, at least some of the material added by this contributor appears to have been copy-pasted from elsewhere. ] (]) 14:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Ezequiel Garay}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Fixed4u}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617737528|18:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617736620 by ] (]) My edit provides reliable information."
# {{diff2|617735437|18:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617731810 by ] (]) "BELIEVED to be in the region of 15 million euros" = GUESS"
# {{diff2|617730832|17:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617730534 by ] (]) S.L. Benfica announcement to ] > your unreliable source"
# {{diff|oldid=617727339|diff=617729495|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) to 17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|617727575|17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617727339 by ] (]) "The deal IS SAID to be worth ABOUT €15m (£12m).""
## {{diff2|617729495|17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Zenit */"
# {{diff2|617714791|15:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "independent.co.uk IS WRONG"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617737592|18:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Ezequiel Garay */"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

I warned the user not to change the edits, I then added further sources, I then warned him on his talk page; he repeatedly ignored and reverted the edits. ] (]) 18:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

False. I didn't ignore you and even explained you why your edits are wrong. ] (]) 18:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb}}. Both users violated ] (by quite a bit). I blocked RealDeal for 48 hours and Fixed for 31 hours. RealDeal had a very recent edit warring block.--] (]) 19:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|HesioneHushabye}}

<!-- 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>: That discussion over two years ago led nowhere, and the user reverted without consensus to his preferred version. The page remained the way it was until I reverted the page to its featured list status today. Any change should be rationally discussed, and from the discussion two years ago, combined with the tone of the reverts today, it doesn't seem as though the user has any interest in being rational. ] (]) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
:{{U|Seattle}}, I don't want to read that 2012 discussion in detail, but when did Hesione restore their preferred version, and what about the intervening edits between 2012 and now (I'm assuming you went all the way back but I haven't verified that)? The only thing that ''is'' clear to me is that Hesione has an attitude (based on edit summaries).--] (]) 19:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Bbb23}} Over the span of , from that ] after a communal discussion. After the FL promotion, an ] formed a consensus to change the font size, which . In 2013, after from HesioneHushabye, another user the article to HesioneHushabye's version, again without consensus. The user updated their version through the next two years, while it remained stable as the unproven version. After updates, not much else changed in terms of format. ] (]) 20:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:::That advances me some, {{U|Seattle}}, but not all the way. Three more questions. First, I see the cause and effect of the encouragement diff, but I don't see how Heisone's comment on the other user's page provoked a change to a ''different'' article. Second, what about those "updates" after the change to the other version? Did you lose them when you restored the article? If so, did you evaluate them substantively? Third, why are you coming back to this so late in the game? I realize nothing compels you to monitor the article, but I'm still curious.--] (]) 20:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::::OK. See , which changed the Drama Desk Award format to the same format at the article, indicative of some connection between the two. The updates didn't affect the format that passed as a FL, but did add . I'm coming back because I want what's proper for Misplaced Pages, to uphold consensus and not the will of the individual. I asked another user to represent my interests a while ago, but I want to represent my own interests now. Of note is his response to HesioneHushabye: . ] (]) 20:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|36 hours}}. Thanks for your responses, {{U|Seattle}}. However, ultimately what tipped the scale for me was Hesione's last revert, which said that you deleted "last year's nominees". Yet, Hesione's version has fewer entries (through 2012) than the version he reverted. I also don't like the aggressive, attacking edit summaries. That said, @Seattle, if the recipient table is still missing the latest entry (2014?), it should be added. In addition, I noticed in passing that there is an "image" of Bancroft with a link that doesn't exist. All that said, you shouldn't be the one to implement these changes at this point, or you will have violated 3RR, regardless of Hesione's block.--] (]) 21:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Bbb23}} OK. I image earlier, but HesioneHushabye reverted that edit as well. I'll leave well enough alone for the period prescribed at ]. Best, ] (]) 21:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==
{{Archive top|result=The post-warning comments are not particularly constructive. We're done here, and, honestly, the reported user is fortunate to have only received a warning.--] (]) 00:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)}}

;Page: {{pagelinks|Public opinion on climate change}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|NewsAndEventsGuy}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617740493|18:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "3RR exemption libel; ] and what's the status of Mann v Ball anyway?"
# {{diff2|617633602|22:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Science */ 3RR exception, stealth reference to libel claims in media now in federal court"
# {{diff2|617624949|20:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Science */ Subtly propogates statements now being litigated in federal court. We aren't a platform for libel."
# {{diff2|617619123|19:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617618369 by ] (]) "the debate" and "is over" are too vacuous to be relevant"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Got to the article via the BLP board, please note there are no names mentioned in the content being removed, so the claim of a BLP exemption is spurious ] (]) 20:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

*'''Response by NAEG'''
This is a report is specious because
(A) I deleted the material four times
(B) Edit summaries state a goodfaith claim for a 3RR exception (libel)
(C) Following the 4th deletion I made a to the talk page discussion and <del>explicitly stated that I would not remove the material again (diff)</del><small>Sorry, I'm pretty sure I typed that somewhere along the line, but now I can't find the diff, but in any case my subsequent actions are consistent with that statement</small>
(D) I also started a ]

OVERALL, blocks and the like are for PREVENTION and not PUNISHMENT. I stopped reverting and participated substantively in the talk thread, and due to the BLP problem intersecting with plausible deniability, also started a thread at BLPN per the part of BLP policy saying "''The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis.''"

QUESTION {{User|Darkness Shines}}, since the goal of admin action is prevention etc and since I am involved in two talk threads and am not reverting, just what is the purpose of this report? Prevention or...... something else?
] (]) 21:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

:The report is because you were edit warring, and broke 3RR. On an article which is covered by discretionary sanctions. ] (]) 21:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

:: (ec) This report clearly intends to harm a very productive editor and not much else. Darkness Shines opened this ''after'' NAEG opened the and even raised the issue , explicitely stating that ''"My deletion was reverted and I'm going to leave the material in the article while soliciting input, starting here at BLPN"''. The deletion he is referring to is what Darkness Shines calls , which means that NAEG only reverted '''3 times''', not 4, since that is not a revert but a removal of content. This is one of those issues that need to be swiftly dismissed with a warning issued to Darkness Shines to avoid opening false reports in the future. Regards. ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:::LMFAO, removing content is a revert. ] (]) 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::::No, that's editing WP. NAEG was not trying to restore the article to his prefered version, he made an original contribution to it by removing content he considered unsuitable. Regards. ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::Dear god in heaven, see ] "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Removing content is a revert. ] (]) 21:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::]: ''Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version.'' Removing content needs to restore the article to a previous version to be considered a revert. If it creates a new version of the article, it is simply a WP edit. Regards. ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 22:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{ec}} {{AN3|w}}. There is no doubt that {{U|NewsAndEventsGuy}} violated ]. The BLP exemption is misguided although ]. ] states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." It would have been more appropriate for NAEG to take the issue to BLPN no later than after the third revert, if not earlier. In addition, the article is under discretionary sanctions, and NAEG is aware of those sanctions, having been officially notified of them in January of this year. Despite all that, I am reluctant to sanction an editor who (1) says he will not revert again and (2) believes he was doing the right thing. But NAEG is '''warned''' that if this kind of conduct recurs, he should seek guidance before reverting and that a repeat violation of this type may lead to a block without notice.--] (]) 22:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

E/C

:::::::I concur only with the result, but respectfully think Bbb23 has not seriously weight the substance underlying this matter. For the record, I "officially notified" myself about DS. (Hmm, come to think of it, before I did that I earned a notice for restoring to a stable version in response to Darkness Shines' edits.)
::::::: I was trying to post the following at time of E/C and will now get back to real work
:::::::
:::::::Dear devil in hades, there was no edit war due to the 3RR exception, and even the non-edit war back-and-forth editing has been '''supplanted by discussion'''
:::::::: Blocking policy says, {{tq|"The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment." }}
:::::::: Having been asked whether the purpose of the complainant is prevention or something else, the complainant says, {{tq|"The report is because you were edit warring, and broke 3RR."}}
:::::::I'm not asking for any admin action, but in my opinion ] applies per "Do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point"
:::::::] (]) 22:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} You're confusing me using DS for discretionary sanctions when DS is also used to refer to Darkness Shines. :-) You were of the discretionary sanctions by {{U|Callanecc}}. I'm not going to address your other points. Let's move on.--] (]) 22:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::Wrong on both counts, B. ''Careful'' reading will show context that I also meant discretionary sanctions, and also corrected the record to say when I was first notified so you didn't really need to thump me there. ] (]) 23:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: I realize this was hatted, but for posterity I'd like to add diffs to my DS self-notices in case this file is reviewed for background in a future proceeding. They are
* but self reverted after ARB clarification motion discussion
*
] (]) 00:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


* '''Comment''' I looked at the content in question and it is not properly sourced and what i call a very questionable addition. As it is, i would have reverted it too i guess. ] (]) 23:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::: With a closer look it appears as if Darkness Shines ] attempts to introduce doubt and denial into the article, since the poll created controversy, see ]. ] (]) 23:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: More detail, Darkness Shines used sources which are/were highly misleading, ], the poll came after the manufactured Climategate controversy and was very vague. ] (]) 00:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)



{{Archive bottom}}

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Myofascial meridians}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Technophant}}

<!-- 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: and

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

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User is a new ] pushing a specific POV wrt acupuncture. Was just reported for edit warring here two days ago. Results in page protection and now editing warring on a new page. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

1. added comment, <s>not</s> a revert,

2. a restore of content removed without discussion

3. copy edit and removed commented material that was restored during edit was, not a revert

4. a restore of content removed without discussion

5. addition of new material, not a revert

If I'm trying to push a specific POV about acu then why did I leave the 2002 acu study off in the #3 revert? Doc James is either very careless or intentionally trying to mislead the noticeboard. - - ] (]) 03:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Case against ] for edit warring and unwarranted content removal:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Myofascial_meridians&diff=617789980&oldid=617789658
#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Myofascial_meridians&diff=617788419&oldid=617788077
#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Myofascial_meridians&diff=617700823&oldid=617695506
#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Myofascial_meridians&diff=617548300&oldid=617542779

I've asked for the page to be fully protected until the merge discussion is over on 25 July. - ] (]) 03:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
::Interesting the number 1 and 5 involved you adding the same material. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Corrected. So we both have 3 reverts in 24 hours. Best thing to do is protect the page at pre-war condition, with the Clinical section.- - ] (]) 03:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - There's apparently an ongoing content dispute on this article, and related acupuncture article, between Technophant, Doc James and a few other editors which Technophant brought to NPOV noticeboard ]. Looking over Technophant's edits, it's hard to tell if they are reverts, but glancing at the edit history for ] shows Doc James made 3 very clear reverts in past 24hrs, which is short of threshold, but seems to suggest mutual edit warring. Perhaps both editors should be warned. --] (]) 03:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
:*'''Result:''' Article protected one month. Edits of this article show a high level of boldness, and there is not much tendency to wait for consensus to be found on Talk. Protection is one way to ensure that discussion takes place. Use {{tl|edit protect}} requests to ask for changes that have consensus. ] (]) 04:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

::User:Technophant was recently involved in edit warring against consensus at acupuncture. See ]. Technophant claimed "A group of editors have repeatedly removed large sections without discussing on talk page first." But I did start a discussion on the talk page for the MEDRS violations. ] (]) 06:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah? ], ], ] please take a closer looks at the diffs of the user's reverts:

#July 20th, 7:12 Adds "] James L. Oschman states that "] are the" and the NPOV tag
#July 20th, 11:18 Adds "In a 2011 study ] James L. Oschman stated that "] are the" and "Several ] courses in Anatomy Trains"
#July 20th 16:13 Adds "] courses in Anatomy Trains"
#July 21st 02:45 Adds "In a 2011 study ] James L. Oschman stated that "] are the"
#July 21st, 03:01 Adds "In a 2011 study ] James L. Oschman stated that "]"

So basically within 20 hours this user added content and than attempted to re-add it four times. Technically 5 reverts. How is this not edit warring?

Additional issue is the refs used such as this recent translation of an early 1900s German alt med text that introduces a new ]. This is similar to using an early 1900s ] text to introduce a new ]. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Clay Mann}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Themann007}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617760354|21:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


;<u>Comments:</u>

user only created account to edit war ] (]) 07:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Avdo Humo}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|58.172.180.117}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617829995|11:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617554545|08:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

This IP Address has been editing dozen of articles without providing reliable source and most of the edits are unconfirmed informations. I would suggest a 1 week block in order to avoid much more damages. <font style="color: rgb(22, 159, 250); font-style: oblique; font-weight: bold; font-family: helvetica neue, sans-serif;">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 11:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|acupuncture<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Jmh649}}

<!-- 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:
#
#
# (rm link to free url for content that didn't exist, uncalled for)
# tendentious

<!-- 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:
(User has not edited talk page section.)

<u>Comments:</u> <br >
User is removing cleanup tags without proper justification or discussion, tendentious editing, and wikihounding.
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

I believe user is acting out of bias and anger and is not trying to improve WP. I'm trying to nip this one in the bud before it escalates. - - ] (]) 11:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
::Nice. Two difs. And look you have restored some so very close paraphrasing / copy and pasting in your last edits
::Currently you stand at three reverts.
::*
::*
::* which is fairly brave as this was the exact same content you tried to edit war about before the article was protected.
::The pmc was already linked in the ref in question if you notice the pmc= parameter. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
*Note at least 2 other sections just above (19-20 July) reporting Technophant for edit-warring in the context of ] violations, also involving ], who is a very respected medical editor. ] (]) 12:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
**Yup, looks like a ] is being made. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 12:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
***Was only involved with one of the reportings. A different user reported him the other time ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
:::User also of copy/paste when the edit clearly did not violate copvio due to it's simplicity. He also threatened my editing privileges. Clearly another attempt to hound me. - ] (]) 12:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{edit conflict}} Take a look at the facts here. The edits I made were constructive, appropriate, and completely unrelated to the previous incidents. Jmh649 actions were tendentious and motivated by personal reasons. - ] (]) 12:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
:I don't know if the admins here can address the hounding issue. If not I will have to take it up separately. - ] (]) 12:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
*I've decided to retract this complaint and take it to more appropriate forum. - ] (]) 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
::Very nice. As you only have 2 difs you have added one from another page and used one dif twice. Not that and are the exact same ONE edit. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Two reverts can constitute edit warring, esp. considering extenuating circumstances. - ] (]) 13:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
::::Yes technically but what are the extenuating circumstances. That you wanted to use a 1900s German text to support the introduction of a new ] that conventional science has missed? So you want to move this discussion here ? ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The reverts by Technophant and (one of which is mentioned by Doc James above) concern some of the same material that led to the article being protected from just yesterday. Note that I am ] and that the article is covered by ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 13:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:12, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Vandalism

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

    User:Shecose reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: )

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Categories: