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

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

Revision as of 18:47, 25 July 2014 editHolybeef (talk \| contribs)182 editsm →User:Holybeef reported by User:0x0077BE (Result: )← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:43, 10 January 2025 edit undoToBeFree (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators127,933 edits →User:Theonewithreason reported by User:PhilipPirrip (Result: Filer informed): reorder
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 = ~~251~~		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Resolved dispute) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Mi corazón es tuyo}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Damián80}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

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

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

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	The user has been reverting every single edit I try to make in the 'Synopsis' section from grammatically correct English (translated from Spanish) to a poorly translated summary of the show. Nearly every single edit someone makes for correct grammar or style is changed by this user into badly written ones without any explanation or compromise. The user has changed multiple sections of this article for revisions that are incorrect in grammar and/or proper spelling. This has been going on for weeks. There are huge errors such as referring to female characters as "him", for example. They gave no reason for the changes either. I explained many times that their summary of the plot was too long and has too much unnecessary information about the show. I feel like a properly translated summary of 2-5 sentences is simple and easier for readers to understand. I have tried communicating via their Talk page (all I got were confusing replies.) and I even reedited what they had with a more simple, grammatically correct version, but they still reverted to their previous edit. ] (]) 23:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	:Serious?, Those issues are not yesterday and came to edit wars. Even leaves a last message By explaining to reach an agreement, . Musicfan877 that it has ignored is none of my business. , I place another complaint, in his discussion clearly explain a reason to reach an agreement, and this user wants to make this a great dispute.--<b>]</b> ] 23:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. You're both at three reverts. Although I won't comment on the substantive content, your English, {{U\|Damián80}} is often almost incomprehensible.--] (]) 23:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
	::I'm not saying that fits the translation of the article, but the user wants to remove everything and leave the short frame. But if this is going to continue and better retirement and everything ready.--<b>]</b> ] 23:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::I think I understand your first sentence, but I have no clue what the second sentence means. Frankly, unless you can edit in intelligible English, I think it would be better to accept one of Musicfan's versions. If you really don't like it, you could always seek input from other editors.--] (]) 00:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::I just looked at your latest edits, and it appears that you have adopted one of Musicfan's versions. Does that mean that the two of you are okay and this report can be closed?--] (]) 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Truth does not follow the subject, have pleased the user to end this.--<b>]</b> ] 00:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
	*Okay, I'm closing this as resolved unless {{U\|Musicfan877}} objects.--] (]) 00:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# (31 December 2024)
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Serbs}}

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Правичност}}

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

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	*

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

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

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* 01:31, 22 July 2014
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	* 04:42, 22 July 2014
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* 13:43, 22 July 2014

			'''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:'''

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

			{{AN3\|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			: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: Blocked 24h) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

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

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

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

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	Правичност is many times to get messages from user to violate rule 3RR, was is blocked.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}

	* ~~20:37, 1 April 2013~~		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

	* 22:12, 9 April 2013

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* 11:51, 10 April 2013
			#

	* ~~19:44, 28 August 2013~~		'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	* User:Wifione blocked him to 24 hour!

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	* 15:01, 10 February 2014

			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.
	* 20:09, 22 July 2014

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	Very interesting while Правичност was not active, IP has vandalized page in the same way and the article has been protected! , , example of work . --] (]) 12:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

			There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 03:29, 23 July 2014 --] (]) 13:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	:: First of all, learn proper english instead of using google translate if you wanna use english wikipedia, second of all, you and your pal Shokac 121 were pushing these changes without trying to reach concensus since last year, you still are pushing unconstructive sources such as those who count language speakers and passports of one country, anything except counting or estimating ethnic groups and then you use same methods to protect yourselves doing it, accusing other people who try to maintain reasonable sources and figures. You push astronomical figures on Croats (for a few million) with circus sources so you could reach number of Serbs by lso degrading numbers on Serbs article, what you are doing is childish games of nationalism and internet frustrative vandalism... whoever you are hiding behind an IP adress, you have no right to accuse or suspect that i was hiding behind IP adresses while being non active. Only you can and your pal Sokac 121 are capable of such things as your reason on wikipedia is to do anything against Serbian related articles. get a life. Greetings (] (]) 14:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

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

			: NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ] (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. ] (]) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Malaysia Airlines Flight 17}} <br />
			::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Wilcannia}}
			::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) ==
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	#

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	:{{AN3\|b\|one day}} <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|57 (number)}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
	'''User being reported:'''
	# {{userlinks\| 173.12.152.214 }}
	#{{userlinks\|68.59.48.216}}
	#{{userlinks\|12.237.80.67 }}
	#{{userlinks\|216.162.148.49 }}

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	The IPs have few, if any edits, ''other'' than to the target page. There was some previous edit warring, but the "Previous version reverted to" below is when the IPs version became stable.
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"

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

			:'''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)
	Previous version reverted to: (as #1)

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	<!-- 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. -->
			: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)
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			: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)
	# as #4
			::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)
	# as #1
			:::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)
	# as #3
			::::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)
	# as #1 plus personal attack
			:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	# as #3
			::::::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)
	# as #1
			::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)
	# as #1
			:::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)
	# as #2
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	# as #2
	# as #2
	# as #2
	# as #1

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

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	#
	# pointed to discussion
	#
	#

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			# {{diff2\|1268310745\|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , (after waiting for the IPs to respond)
			# {{diff2\|1268310470\|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268310062\|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268308804\|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
			# {{diff2\|1268308036\|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"

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


	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

	I haven't submitted the AN3 warning yet, as it's possible there are other IPs the editor has access to. — ] ] 04:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
	:I reverted 8 of the 13, {{u\|Schlafly}} 3, and {{u\|Kendrick7}} and I both modified one of them. — ] ] 04:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' Semiprotected two months due to edit warring by a fluctuating IP. This break will allow time for the editor behind these IPs to read the ] policy. ] (]) 04:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|July 2009 Ürümqi riots}} <br />
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|146.200.179.28}}

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	# (this one was made a few weeks earlier behind a different IP)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	User was warned of 3RR here:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			# {{diff2\|1268346980\|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
	This person has made 5 identical reverts, 4 within one day. and both have the same ISP and geolocation, so it's safe to assume that this is the same person. The problem on this page relates to the Archive.is uncertain stalemate that's currently undergoing community discussion. The IP user first reverts 2Flows's revert of an indef blocked user (Prebyslaff), but I revert him with an explanation; unsatisfied with my explanation, he reverts me, and at this point I suggest that he discuss on the talk page, however this does not occur. In my opinion, the IP user does not have a convincing reason for removing an archive.is URL link from a citation, and is merely removing it for the sole reason that it is an archive.is URL, despite that there has been no community motion whatsoever for mass archive.is URL removals. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 07:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268346280\|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
			# {{diff2\|1268345229\|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Mohammed Burhanuddin}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Md iet}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|618236809\|07:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 618103062 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|618102744\|10:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 618101779 by ] (]) revised , may please discuss at talk page before further removal."
	# {{diff2\|618101552\|10:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617429012 by ] (]) unjustified removal. Rather removing please make it important information readable."

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|618102957\|10:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Summary of 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) */"
	# {{diff2\|618103842\|10:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Summary of 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) */"

			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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:That is because {{u\|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			:{{u\|Shecose}}, {{tqq\|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I realize the policy states, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts'', right? '''This is three, not more than three.''' It shows the desperation. ] (]) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{u\|Shecose}}, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ] (]) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	Main resolution initiative is ]. For some reason I cannot mark it as such in the Twinkle ARV box. ] <small>(])</small> 07:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Reply:
			# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
	The present matter inserted is quite different then initial one, taking due care of the objections raised by reporter to make the presentation NPOV. However the following makes the thing further clear:
			# "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)"

	::Reporter ]'s following revision speaks of the unjustified removal being done by the reporter, even after request made for discussion.

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			#: "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:'''
	The complete point wise justification for inclusion given to ], who is adamant to force his version, which is conveying a wrong and incomplete message contrary to information available in reliable sources.
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

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


			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).
	Thanks,--] (]) 10:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

			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.
	:Note to administrator: while Md iet has it seem like I violated ], the last two diffs are the same link and the first one is a week earlier than the other two. ] <small>(])</small> 11:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

			End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think ] might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within after being inactive since based off their ].
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Run the Jewels (album)}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Jusgtr}}

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Previous version reverted to:
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer informed) ==
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|618245953\|08:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 618244997 by ] (]) Yes, well, I am focusing on keeping it with the EA Sports usage."
	# {{diff2\|618242330\|08:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 618219295 by ] (]) Yes, I also update BEMANI games with new info"
	# {{diff2\|618215308\|03:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 618125633 by ] (]) Well, Static & you should be blocked. I win"
	# {{diff2\|618115226\|12:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 618082206 by ] (]) Get out! Static, I kicked out Koala"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Theonewithreason}}
	# {{diff2\|618245019\|08:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


			#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			#
			#
			#

	Just look at the page history of ], this has gotten ridiculous. Now they have violated ] after being warned about it a second time, and I was able to report it before it became stale. '''] <small>]</small>''' 09:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\| 24 hours}}. Clear reverts, was warned. ] ] 11:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Template:Power Rangers}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Bumblebee9999}}

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
	# {{diff2\|618302243\|17:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	# {{diff2\|618331700\|21:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 618315637 by ] (]) until ] is done."
	# {{diff2\|618340652\|23:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 618332767 by ] (]) A list of Power Ranger home media releases is not "general power rangers stuff", uh yes it is!"
	# {{diff2\|618397153\|10:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)}} "It is relevant as this is a template for '''Power Rangers''' and it is a List of Mighty Morpin '''Power Rangers''' home media release. Stop making false claims to remove stuff and ]."

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|618386079\|07:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|618394087\|09:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Link to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases */ new section"

			I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			:{{u\|Theonewithreason}}, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
	Bumblebee9999 boldly added something to the template. I removed it because I felt it was not suitable for the template. It was added back despite attempts at discussion his user talk and on the template's talk page which has been ignored because he does not want me to talk to him despite our current direct content dispute(s). —] (]) 10:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:How much more are you going to do to get your way? I am reporting you now as we speak because you have just pushed my last button by going way to far to get your way with this stupid ]. You are the one edit warring making false claims of irrelavent when they are both fucking '''Power Ranger''' subjects. How do I report him for harassment to the Wikiboard cause I have had it with him. Look at all the crap he has been doing stalking me, leaving threatening crap on my goddamn talk page and I only reverted once today and now he making false accusation of edit warring when you can see clearly that one on different day. Please tell Ryulong to leave me alone and stop trying to intimidate me to get his way with List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases. ] (]) 10:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::You made more than 3 reverts to restore your preferred identical version of the page content within a 24-hour period. That is a violation of ]. I have attempted to discuss this with you in multiple places but you refused and you added to try to intimidate me or other users. And it is not stalking you when we are in a direct content dispute.—] (]) 10:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::Whatever dude, just anything to get your way with the ], you were editting warring by making false claims to remove it saying it was irrelevant when it is not as both have to do with fucking '''Power Rangers''' the template is "Template:'''Power Rangers'''" and the list is "List of Mighty Morphin '''Power Rangers''' home media releases" so if anyone was edit warring it was you by reverting my edits with unfounded reasons. All you are doing is trying to get your way with that damn list and you need to stop and back off me. ] (]) 10:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::Please leave all discussion of the dispute on the template talk page where I have detailed my objections to the addition as I have in multiple other places.—] (]) 10:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::::You only want me to do that because you are actually the one who is edit warring and I just posted proof of it. ] (]) 10:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::::You've posted no proof. You're just trying to further the content dispute discussion on this page rather than where it should have taken place.—] (]) 10:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Oh and look who just did over 3 reverts in 24 hours themselves, dude you are so full of it. This is all so you can get your way, admins please do not give him his way. And yes I did you were edit warring with me making false claims of '''not relevant'' to the topic of the template when it is relevant as they are both '''Power Rangers''' and that is proof you were edit warring first to get your way and now are putting on me and you just broke the 24 hour 3 revert as well so you reported me to get the crap of you and you should be blocked just as well if I get blocked. In fact I will go ahead and make a report just like you did. ] (]) 11:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::I have not performed more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. The contested content that you posted is still there, but I've moved it to a more proper place. If it was gone entirely then yes I would have broken the limit. And I reported you after you restored everything despite all of the attempts I made to begin a discussion. Making a retaliatory report is not going to solve anything.—] (]) 11:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::And to be transparent, .—] (]) 11:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|warned}} '''''] ]<small><FONT COLOR="#313F33"> and the soapdish</FONT></small>''''' 11:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Lee Jung-jin (footballer)}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ] blocked for 1 week) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sillypickle123}}
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Power Rangers}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ryulong}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1268583865\|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|618302243\|17:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1268451301\|21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268450870\|21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268449472\|21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268448980\|21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			# {{diff2\|1268447335\|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# {{diff2\|1268463321\|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
	# 10:18, 25 July 2014‎ "this warning is invalid, it doesn't belong in the "see also" section if it belongs at all"
	# 07:42, 25 July 2014‎ "Reverted 3 edits by Bumblebee9999 (talk): Bring it up on the template talk page. I removed it because it is not relevant to the whole of the topic. (TW)"
	# 22:01, 24 July 2014‎ "Reverted 1 edit by Bumblebee9999 (talk): It doesn't belong on the template because it is not about general power rangers stuff. (TW)"
	# 19:41, 24 July 2014‎ Ryulong "Reverted 1 edit by Bumblebee9999 (talk): Doesn't seem like a valid separate page. (TW)"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268447335\|diff=1268451519\|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			* {{AN3\|b\| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:"/* Link to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases */ new section"

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />There are four reverts in 24 hours and not to mention he is doing the edit warring for false revert claim. ] (]) 11:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

	This report is retaliatory to the one above it. I've self reverted to the original version of the template which means that there are 2 reverts now. I've made all attempts to encourage discussion on this in the proper locations but Bumblebee9999 refuses to let me edit his user talk page and is going out of his way to try to get me punished, which included a threat to report me to a non-existant "Misplaced Pages Board of Directors".—] (]) 11:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:Regardless of the sentiment behind it, it is clear that you instigated the whole edit war and broke the 3rr first. '''''] ]<small><FONT COLOR="#313F33"> and the soapdish</FONT></small>''''' 11:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::I've so that means there's no more broken 3RR. And this happens every time I get into a content dispute with someone who doesn't know anything about how Misplaced Pages works. I revert. I begin a discussion. He reverts back to his version because he thinks he's right and I'm trying to take over Misplaced Pages. And I can't even direct him to the proper place to have a discussion on this content dispute because despite the fact we are currently discussing issues on multiple pages.—] (]) 11:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::It still is a revert and it counts or so I been told, it does not matter if you did not actually revert with the "undo" button, you were still reverting/deleting what I posted, regardless. Also so he cannot claim that I did not give him a warning of this report I direct you to his where you can see he reverted and removed it because he seems the type of person to do that. ] (]) 11:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::A self revert is effectively a -1 revert. And those are not warnings. Those are notifications of this thread which I am already fully aware of.—] (]) 11:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::Others manage to avoid it. Maybe have a read of ]. If you see a 3RR about to occur, stop and discuss before attempting to use this page as a sledgehammer to punish them. '''''] ]<small><FONT COLOR="#313F33"> and the soapdish</FONT></small>''''' 11:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::I reverted once and attempted to discuss it with him but because of the AFD he has failed to assume any good faith of my actions and now forbids me from editing his user talk at all.—] (]) 11:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::And just to be sure, in order to properly self revert?—] (]) 11:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::::LOL! ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS! LMFAOROTG! A self revert is not a -1 revert, it is a revert, LOL! Oh, thank you for more proof dude, you are a riot, you will make anything up to get your way and be right LMAO! Agrue away. I am so done with this. LOL! I hope we both get blocked. LOL! And no you have not tried to discuss anything with me, you have done nothing but cause trouble since I started ] as you went and nominated that right after I reverted you, dude every thing you did is right there in the history of everything and they can see that you did not handle this right at all right off the bat so of course I would not assume any good faith in your actions and forbid you from editing on my talk page at all because why would I want to do with and work with someone who goes off and starts off on the wrong foot right off the bat? Keep trying to insult me to get me down, you did wrong bud sorry but you did but as I said I am done with this and I hope we both get blocked for 24 hours. ] (]) 11:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Also I am done commenting because I been trying to post for the past 20 minutes and I keep getting an edit conflict, screw that. ] (]) 11:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Read ] and ].—] (]) 11:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	I've blocked ] for 1 week. Looking at his block log is depressing, he clearly knew what he was doing and was gaming the system. '''''] ]<small><FONT COLOR="#313F33"> and the soapdish</FONT></small>''''' 11:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:Thank you. Please feel free to block me for 24 hours if you wish. I will take responsibility for my violation of the 3RVT. ] (]) 11:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Alan Guth}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Holybeef}}

	<!-- 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> <br />
	* I am a neutral third party in this dispute, brought in by ] (). From the talk page, it seems that {{u\|Holybeef}} has been resisting any efforts to build consensus on this matter. He/she claims that the removal of this particular section is vandalism, despite strong evidence that these are in fact good faith efforts. I suggested that the principals involved here stop editing the page until a consensus is reached. {{u\|SCZenz}} seemed willing to do this. {{u\|Primefac}} devised and implemented a compromise version , which {{u\|Holybeef}} reverted, ''after'' I had asked him to stop editing the page in the talk page and ''after'' I had warned him using <nowiki>{{subst:Uw-3rr}}</nowiki>, in clear violation of ]. (Note: I erroneously suggested that he had already been in violation of ] after his 3rd edit, which {{u\|SCZenz}} correctly pointed out in the talk page).

	:I see no evidence that {{u\|Holybeef}} has used sockpuppets, so I would recommend that {{u\|Holybeef}} be temporarily banned from editing this particular article while we work this out. I think the article should be reverted to the compromise wording in the meantime.] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 13:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

	* '''Response''' There is no edit war here, not only because there wasn't one technically, but also due to the essence of the issue. Deleting (by user SCZent w/o discussion) an entire section (after it was previously discussed at length and agreed upon months ago) which contains only quotes from reputable secondary sources and nothing else (so there's no room for interpretation, only counter-references, if any) is ]. So I base my judgment on ]. Also, this isn't the Dark Ages and there's no forbidden literature, so we don't delete reliable secondary references just because we don't like them or because ''we'' think they're slander. In this case: if Linde's statements were indeed slanderous, editors-in-chief of SciAm or Financial Times (referred to in the section) would have certainly vetted such statements. User SCZenz is clearly trying to impose his ] by judging reliable secondary sources and top scientists' statements, and he's doing it in an aggressive manner, so I think he should be banned til he cools down a bit. Thanks. ] (]) 13:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::I will note here that {{u\|Holybeef}} is unique in his assumption of bad faith on the part of both {{u\|SCZenz}} and {{u\|Primefac}}, which is prima facie evidence that it is possible to ] with regard to {{u\|SCZenz}} and {{u\|Primefac}}'s edits. It's not clear what is meant by "not only because there wasn't one technically", here, as this is a clear violation of 3RR, and the violation occurred ''after'' {{u\|Holybeef}} was warned on this both on his talk page and on the ] talk page. ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 13:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::Well "technically" meant edit war occurs ''after'' third edit (4th and on), not ''on'' third edit. But that's besides the point since it's not an edit war to revert edits that were based on bad faith and thus constituted vandalism. Also, you should stop seeking consensus on this matter, see ]. Simply: there is no voting on the issue of whether or not reliable secondary references could be included or not, since finding and including such sources is a right and a duty of every editor so that we can make a better encyclopedia. I explained above why it's ] and ] to delete such references or sections that contain only such references and no interpretation. You can question neutrality of interpretation by arguing this and that. But in order to counter reliable references alone, you too must provide reliable references that counter the ones you don't like or don't agree with. Thanks. ] (]) 13:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Note''': Despite my repeated admonitions and suggestions to the contrary, {{u\|Holybeef}} has continued to revert good faith edits to the page, even after this official report has started. Obviously he knows what he is doing. I suggest at least a 24 hour ban if not more. ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 18:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::You're overreacting: note my comments in talk page, where I stated per your request that I do find the ] version to be a compromise. I find it also disrespectful that you're not objecting to ] edits at all (of not only mine but now of Dilaton's compromise version also), and a (edit) war takes two sides doesn't it? At any rate, I voiced my opinion and proposed a compromise as per your request. Why didn't you respond to it, instead requesting a ban for me? Note also that 24 h lapsed so I'm not in violation of the 3RR rule, but SCZenz is again close to it yet you take no action. Thanks. ] (]) 18:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Yank Barry}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Tarc}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|618433793\|16:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 618432530 by ] (]) - it is a factual, neutral statement sourced to metronews.ca. In all your WP:* page citations, give ] a read-through sometime"
	# {{diff2\|618431154\|15:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 618426999 by ] (]) - It is not a BLP vilation to mention the basic facts of the subject fiuling a lawsuit"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|618436106\|16:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Yank Barry */ new section"

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


	;<u>Comments:</u>

	: Tried to give friendly warning; user removed notice, with edit summary of "Don't template me, nubcakes." ] (]) 17:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

	* This is a confusing report. You need 4 reverts in 24 hours to be in violation of the 3RR. There are only 2 given. Also, I couldn't find anything on page that suggests 1RR restrictions were imposed, but if that's actually the case, edit history shows multiple users are over 1RR currently, so wonder why Tarc is being singled out here. --] (]) 17:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:: Tarc wasn't singled out, I left notice on two editors talk pages. Instead of commenting or replying to their fellow editor like a normal editor, Tarc decided to remove the notice with a snide comment. Perhaps he should read ] ] (]) 12:46 pm, Today (UTC−5)
	* I agree with {{u\|BoboMeowCat}}. I'm not seeing any indication that {{u\|Tarc}} is some sort of notorious edit warrior or anything. The big problem seems to me that {{u\|Tarc}} was potentially uncivil to {{u\|R3ap3R}} in an edit summary, deleting a 3RR warning template. I'm thinking this is something that should have been worked out on the ] before taking it here. ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 17:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

	* I have no idea on earth why this was filed, I reverted twice, and there is no 1RR enforced on the page that I can see. This...filer, isn't even actively involved in the article at all; they attempted one speedy deletion almost 2 months ago and that is all. About the only thing I find more irksome than a ] faux pas is a busybody. ] (]) 17:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:: ] is an essay, not a rule as stated in the lead "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. Essays are not Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines". WP:DNTTR further states: "Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template." ] (]) 17:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps next time, you will do more than a shallow examination of the situation. If you had, you'd have seen that neither the 3RR warning nor was the "edit warring" report here were applicable. What you see as bad faith I see as a fundamental lack of due diligence. ] (]) 18:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::: A cursory overview of your talk page's history shows that I am far from being the first person to claim you have an issue with ] ] (]) 18:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::: Hey, guys, can you take this somewhere else? If the discussion is about {{u\|Tarc}}'s civility, this isn't where the discussion goes. It's pretty obvious there was no 3RR and there's no ongoing edit war. Honestly, I think you can both just let it go and walk away. ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 18:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|<!-- Nancy's biography -->}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|<!-- Nancy Reagan -->}}



	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Nancy Reagan is shushed.

Latest revision as of 21:43, 10 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.

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

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

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

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

"I "tried to delete me reporting them""

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

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

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

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

The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level

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

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

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

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

I notify the user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. Shecose (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I realize the policy states, An editor must not perform more than three reverts, right? This is three, not more than three. It shows the desperation. Shecose (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Shecose, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

Theonewithreason, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Filer informed about WP:ONUS/WP:BLPRESTORE; closing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Blocked indefinitely Jauerback/_dude. 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: