Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:00, 1 August 2014 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →User:JHUbal27 reported by User:Carnildo (Result: 48 hours): Closing← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,713 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
{{no admin backlog}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/Header}}] <!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 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&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
;Page: {{pagelinks|2014 insurgency in Donbass}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Soffredo}}


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


;Diffs of the user's reverts: '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|618744807|00:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 618741031 by ] (]) Why not use short names? For the "War of Transnistria" infobox, we list it as Transnistria despite not controlling all claimed territory." # {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|618740440|23:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)}} "But he's not representing Russia, which is also involved."
# {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|618736368|23:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|618726486|21:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|618741738|23:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Flags in the Campaignbox Post-Soviet conflicts */ notice"


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


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


;<u>Comments:</u>
*This user doesn't seem to "]" what other people are saying. He repeatedly reinserts edits that multiple people revert, without ever trying to engage in a frank discussion. This is not the first time he has done this. I warned him of discretionary sanctions related to Eastern Europe-related articles, and yet he kept on reverting. I don't know that he needs a block, but I do know that someone needs to explain to him that it doesn't accomplish anything to revert without discussion, especially when multiple editors are saying that one's edit isn't appropriate. ] — ] 01:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::If I may ask, is there a particular reason this "case" hasn't been either responded to or dealt with? ] — ] 01:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
::: Your report is well-formed and the violation is clear, so I am not sure why it got skipped. Sorry about that. - ] <small>(])</small> 12:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
* {{AN3|b|1 week}}. Continued edit warring today, definite problems with edit warring and collegiality in the past. - ] <small>(])</small> 12:15, 31 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: Indeffed + master) == == ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


;Page: {{pagelinks|Exclusive economic zone of Somalia}} '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
;User being reported: {{userlinks|‎S20003}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}


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


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


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
# Keeps removing cited work, vandalising.


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>
*The user keeps blanking sections and replacing it with texts such as I've messaged the user as well as having posted a message on the article talk page. I believe he's using a second account called ]. ] (]) 02:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:That's clearly him. ] (]) 03:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b}}. K is the master and S is the puppet. Both have been indeffed.--] (]) 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Locked) ==


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


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


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


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


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


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


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>Comments:</u> I'm a completely uninvolved editor who was notified of this on the IRC help channel. Tasnuva tahnin was never warned, and no discussion was carried out on the talk page. I think indefinite semi would be a good idea on the page, too; it's been an IP battleground for a while. ]&nbsp;(]) 02:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
*{{AN3|p}} (full) for one week. There have been a great many problems with non-autoconfirmed accounts. The reported editor is not autoconfirmed. However, the editor the reported editor has been battling with recently ''is'' autoconfirmed, and although ''that'' editor hasn't breached 3RR, I'm not inclined to block the reported user given the circumstances. He's also apologized on his talk page. I took an unusual step and reverted the last edits by a new user who made a BLP and formatting mess of the page. What concerns me is whether there's anyone editing this page who is sufficiently responsible to do so in a constructive manner; in other words, what's going to happen at the end of the week? My guess is a repeat of the chaos.--] (]) 09:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Mashriq}} <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|24.36.80.217}}


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
<!-- 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|History of India}} <br />
Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}


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


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


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
All though they have not broken 3Rv, they clearly are being disruptive and refuse to corporate no matter how many times told to. ] (]) 07:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:Since this is a very slow-burning edit war, and the reverts seem to have been prompt and left in place, what administrative action would change the situation? Short of a multi-week block, all I can think of is an new note requesting that the issues be discussed on the talk page -- ] (]) 08:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::I see, can we protect the page at least? ] (]) 15:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|p}} for a short time, and Pending Changes implemented indefinitely <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
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)
;Page: {{pagelinks|2006 Lebanon War}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Lugnuthemvar}}


: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)
;Previous version reverted to:


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|618656516|10:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|618669663|12:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Israel retreated. that's a fact and NPOV. the fact that you want it to be indecisive is an attempt to save face for the IDF. making it non NPOV"
# {{diff2|618683998|15:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)}} "stalemate is an POV view. withdrawal is fact. check your biases before you post"


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|618786064|08:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>
# {{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:'''
The user was warned by admin not to edit war and yet he reverted after the warning ] (])/] 09:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}}.--] (]) 09:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|What Life Stole from Me‎}} <br />
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Zaca4}}


== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
Diffs of the user's reverts:
*
*


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}
The user Zaca4, appears to be a puppet ] (]). You have started an edit war in the article mentioned only to add information without references and irrelevant. A month ago to explain it in a thousand ways and not seem to mind, I think the user Sky0000 has returned with a new puppet.--<b>]</b> ] 12:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Let me talk too. I haven't done more than 3 edits there, but he is. I asked from him information , what I do wrong and how I go against rules. He didn't even answer me. Understand, please my edits are necessary, and he hasn't explained me, what I do wrong. I'm very sorry.
] (]) 13:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' I notice that {{u|Damián80}} was recently reported for edit warring on another telenovella page , after three reversions. I think both parties need to review ] here. Neither party is even using edit summaries. ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{ping|0x0077BE}}, That has to do with this?, Is that case is trying to support the other user?. First I need not explain anything to this person, as it is a puppet of another user who was blocked for a month for this reason. Add death of each character is irrelevant, if wikipedia is to be placed everything that happened in each chapter in a soap opera?. To entertain that come here. For to this you should not come to any consensus. If someone has to know how to die urgency of each character in a soap opera, as you see it, that's why it was created!. Always have placed the characters and the actors. This information that the user attempts to add is irrelevant. So I ask you, if you agree that this information will be added, he believes that wikipedia will become?.--<b>]</b> ] 16:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::The mention of the previous incident shows that you're aware of the policies on edit warring, and have a tendency to ignore ]. Regarding the content, that's not an issue for this page. Read ]. You need to at least ''try'' to work it out on the talk page before running for administrative action. You aren't explaining it just to {{u|Zaca4}}, you're explaining it to everyone else who is trying to figure out why editorial decisions were made. ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 16:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
I say you , too Damian, what that Sky0000 user thing has to do with this problem. I don't know that person. Also if watcher didn't see a few episodes, and he doesn't have chance to watch episodes again, person comes to Misplaced Pages. Also Damian has deleted united states broadcast from many articles without no reason. Why it disturbed you now? Before it you took all information from cast and then broadcast disturbed you. Please, understand, that person thinks that Misplaced Pages's for him, but it's for everyone. I just want to help other people. Also I viewed his talk page archive too, he's been in a lot of edit-wars before also. Also I did also my own article about cast in Corazon Valiente, and he even does not let me refer to it, he says it is poorly written, but maybe for other people it is not. Understand, that person just wants to have fun in wikipedia and wants to look articles like he wants and when someone is trying to hinder him, he comes here and says bad about others. Also I looked to internet, I didn't find such a good programming guides as they were in wikipedia. Please I'm not trying to slander him but I tell how things really look like. Also I'm very sorry for my behavior but with that person is impossible to talk. I hope you understand me. ] (]) 16:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
#


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:No need to add this type of information, this user a month ago did the same article, and I'm sorry, but I will not be trying all the time to reach a conseso so unnecessary to add information to each art.


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
A month ago this person did this:
*
*
*


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Is it that these edits are correct? and should discuss this in all pages of discussion?.--<b>]</b> ] 17:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*'''Second Comment''': As of this point, Damian is at 5 reverts ( ) and Zaca4 is now at 3 ( ). Damian is in clear violation of 3RR. Zaca4 is probably guilty of edit warring as well, given the notice. ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 17:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::It's like you two want, and leave the article as it was before, and mine are not 5 reversals learn to look good. I'm tired of this and this user, all here everyone does what he wants..--<b>]</b> ] 17:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Already Placed the article "]" as I was before, as presumably are very important items were.e. I tired to continue wasting time user you do what you want.--<b>]</b> ] 17:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*'''Note''': After Damian self-reverted and decided to "give up", I, explaining my reasoning, restored the page to the version ''before'' {{u|Zaca4}}'s version, as that was the stable version and didn't have the style and grammar issues, and requested that {{u|Zaca4}} please justify any further edits in the talk page. Zaca4 then performed his on the page, with the "explanation" on the talk page given being: "Can you let me keep that information, here okay?". I do suspect he may be doing some editing as IP, but it doesn't seem to be to create a false consensus or avoid 3RR. ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 20:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::The user Zaca4 has not reached a consensus on the article where the edit war began, and started again.
#
#
#]
Has not yet reached an agreement to add this type of irrelevant information. And the user wants to start more wars editions.--<b>]</b> ] 06:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
:::I add this other article that has already started another edit war .--<b>]</b> ] 07:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


I edited ] and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following ]. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
I didn't start a war, I just made some changes. I am a victim of Damian. Look at all pages, when someone wants to change something always Damian undoes it without no reason. That person harms Misplaced Pages and makes false accusations. I am sorry for all, I maybe will not continue, but I'm not only one, who is guilty, Damian is too. He thinks some pathetic justifications to explain his reverts. Please do something with him, I am really sorry for all but this person thinks that I am again a user, who doesn't let him have fun in Misplaced Pages and who he has to remove with some false accusations. I don't want to start a war but that is not fair that one person does here what he wants and nobody stops him. Also he said me do what you want and now he comes here and says that I am here to start a war. I hope that you understand me. ] (]) 07:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
:Verification of accounts that have asked tell the truth, you are a puppet Sky0000, edited in the same way. A month ago I explained on your issues and you do not seem to mind. Also on July 25 just blocking.--<b>]</b> ] 09:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
I may admit yes Sky0000 and Zaca4 have same IP, but I don't confirm, that behind them is same person. I am sorry for my behaviour, I promise, I will not touch telenovelas again and please I don't want another month or more, forgive me. That's your decision you punish Damian or me or no. But I say I am not and I won't be first or last person , who has problems with Damian. I hope you understand and you let other better people make changes in telenobela pages. I refuse to do it, I do not want any more problems. Really sorry. ] (]) 10:04, 29 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)
* {{AN3|bb}} Both were clearly edit warring and not doing much to build ]. I have also semi-protected the article. The sock puppetry report is still open, so no action there. - ] <small>(])</small> 12:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
Previous version reverted to:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
I'm new to wikipedia, so this is my second report on a user, but I'm not 100% clear on how this works. There was a user who kept repeatedly editing the genre for a movie on a page and never stopped. User has been asked to stop but has not responded and continued to edit the genre.


'''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:


'''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|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{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:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
*'''Result:''' Warned. User seemed to be engaged in mass genre-changing of thriller movies to mark them as action movies. This may have stopped. ] (]) 00:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
== ] reported by ] (Result:36 hours ) ==


:'''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)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Burao}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|46.7.249.19}}


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
Previous version reverted to:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#
#


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> Apparent block evading ip sock of ]. Began disrupting the same pages a few minutes after the main account was blocked for 3RR. Along with the just blocked socks ] and ], appears to be a meatpuppet associated with the indefinitely banned ]. Also see ("its mine (somaliland) not for somalia, somaliland army is watching you online, just like we defeated you on the ground") and ("And yes I asked people on a blog to come and edit some pages"). ] (]) 18:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|blocked| 36 hours}} Blocked this editor yesterday at 18:14, 28 July 2014 without knowing about this report. ] (]) 10:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Pointless squabble; stale) ==
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
{{Archive top|result=Now the discussion is closed.--] (]) 01:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Kelpie}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Eric Corbett}}


<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. -->


Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
<!-- 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:
# (—reversion of edits by {{ping|Kiyoweap}}, which were not "vandalism" as Eric states, but rather tags primarily for poor sourcing issues raised on the talk page })
#
#
#


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
<!-- 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: (here's the mandatory template: )


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
<!-- 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: (discussion here; note also that edit summaries above repeatedly request user to continue using the talk page rather than simply remove article issue tags)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
This is part of an ongoing issue involving problematic sourcing on the ] article, which was recently a featured article. However, when the article became featured, it was clear that it didn't receive the scrutiny it needed; references to the ] of ] were employed and numerous issues relating to sourcing have been raised since. Eric appears to have been a major contributor to the state of the article at that time, and these reversions seem to be related to that fact. ] (]) 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL:-->
# {{diff2|1268346980|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
*Your supposed to link to the 3rr warning you issued, and then where they reverted after you issued it. You still haven't issued a 3rr warning, and Eric hasn't edited the article subsequent to your notice of the discussion here. Furthermore, the 3rr rule is not an entitlement to edit war until you hit it, so you are just as guilty of edit warring as Eric is. ]] 18:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268346280|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
::What, beyond text in an edit summary warning about revert amounts, qualifies as a "3RR warning"? As you can see, Eric edited after that. This doesn't count as a 3RR "warning"? I certainly didn't violate 3RR, and my edits repeatedly ask him to discuss it on the talk page—where I was discussing the issue—rather than simply reverting page issue templates. I'm also unclear about what has happened in the policy; in the past it's been pretty cut and dry—over 3 reverts and it's a block—but apparently that has changed? ] (]) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268345229|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
:::...how embarrassing. I suggest you read up on it a bit more before coming here and throwing accusations around. ]] 18:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ec}}Generally we prefer to see a {{tl|uw-3rr}} (or non-template equivalent message if you subscribe to ]), or at least a {{tl|uw-ew}} followed by the editor continuing to edit war. The idea is to make sure that there is no question they were aware that continuing was a violation of policy, and that they then proceeded to do so. Intentionally edit warring up to 3rr, is still edit warring, and that you reported it here shows you knew you were participating in an edit war. ]] 18:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:::{{edit conflict}} I was discussing it on the talk page page with your tag-team colleague {{u|Kiyoweap}}, who had yet to respond, which is why I consider your repeated insertion of these defacing tags to be vandalism. Added to which neither you nor Kiyoweap have even the vaguest idea what you're talking about. ] ] 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::::Eric, as we apparently don't need to go this route, let's just keep the sand in the sand box (] talk page) so we can all play together like nice kids. We can discuss your choice of sourcing there. ] (]) 19:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::We were already discussing it there. This isn't a route I chose, it's the one that you've chosen. ] ] 19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


:::::So let me be clear about this (I've been editing on and off for around for several years, and there certainly have been changes to this situation since I was last pretty active on Misplaced Pages). So, "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 the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours" no longer applies? It's still at the top of the page, and this doesn't seem to fall under the "exceptions". And there is "preferred" means of warning another user before they hit that cap that, without use, invalidates 3RR? And, to be clear, since I'm reporting this in the first place, I'm guilty of edit warring, despite repeatedly asking the other user to take it to the talk page? Given {{user|Cassianto}}'s response, I'm guessing we don't have a civility policy anymore either... ] (]) 19:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::The point of the policy is not to block as many people as possible, but to stop the edit warring. That said, its also important not to let 3rr be used by one editor to "win" an edit war by getting the other editor blocked. Eric may well end up getting blocked for his violation of 3rr, but its also clear from the page history that you have a history of edit warring with Eric on this topic before today. You come here with ]. ]] 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Has there been an amount of discussion over changing the wording that I quote above? It seems like this policy doesn't really reflect how it's worded on this page anymore, which does indeed seem as cut and dry as I recall it being in the past. If this was all spelled out above, I wouldn't be wasting anyone's time with it (above it says, for example, "consider warning them by placing on their user talk page"—note ''consider''). ] (]) 19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Some admins are just more eager to block for 3rr violations than others. Personally, I like to make sure an editor has been given ample chances (such as the warning) to cut it out before resorting to a block. In the past I've warned editors with 7+ reverts, and only blocked them if they continued after the warning. My goal is to not block a good faith editor if there is any way to avoid it. That said, because there are admins who do more aggressively enforce 3rr, its best for editors to know that they are always at risk of being blocked when they violate it. If an admin chooses to block Eric in this instance, it would be within their discretion under the 3rr rule. ]] 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::{{reply-to|Bloodofox}} - Seriously? Read the rest of the policy:
:::::::::The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by ] operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may ] with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is '''not an entitlement''' to revert a page a specific number of times.
:::::::: The bolding is in the original, not mine, but it's exactly what I would have emphasized to explain this to you. Just because you're discussing it ''and'' reverting doesn't mean you're not edit warring.] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 19:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
* {{u|Bloodofox}}, did I see you say that you consider something you said in an ''edit summary'' to have been an '''appropriate''' 3RR notification to another editor? No way. Edit summaries are to give a summary of your edit - not to make direct communication with another editor, especially for the purposes of providing a formal warning <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*:I don't want to get off on a technicality. A formal warning would have made no difference to me anyway, as I consider the addition of defacing tags to a recently promoted FA to be vandalism. ] ] 19:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:* ] applies here too. After Eric reverted the addition of the tags, the next step is to discuss whether they're appropriate, not to simply replace them. This is especially the case on a featured article. ] 20:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:*I don't think they qualify as vandalism as defined by ], but tagging an FA or any article that has been reviewed by so many people is never a good idea until you have ''first'' discussed the concern. We don't give special privilege to FA articles ''per se'', but the very act of passing it means several people think it isn't a problem and that has to be taken into consideration. If you tag and it is reverted, you should have the good sense to discuss adding it back before reverting again. Otherwise, it seems ]y, as it obvious that more than one person disagrees with you, even before you put the tag up. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 20:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:*:Probably not, but it's vandalism as far as I'm concerned nevertheless. ] ] 20:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*As the warring has stopped, the tags have been reverted off and it is being discussed (via ]) by both parties, I don't see a need to start blocking people just for the sake of blocking people, as there isn't anything to ''prevent''. I think this just needs to go back to the article talk page and be closed, with everyone learning a bit of a lesson what is and isn't warring for the future. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 20:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


*I think we can all assume that Eric has been around long enough to know about 3RR; complaining that he didn't get a formal warning is quite tenuous. Also, this is clearly not even remotely close to vandalism (per WP's definition of the word). Finally, there have been some (brief) talk page discussions about the tagging. Two editors agree that the tags are valid, and Eric disagrees. Seems to me that Eric is edit warring against consensus, even if it is a rather small, local consensus. Not every article has hundreds of contributors watching it, ready to participate in a discussion, so sometimes 2-3 editors is all you get to determine consensus. Since Eric clearly violated 3RR, I believe he should receive a 24-hour block, like any other normal editor would. Of course, we all know that won't happen, because of Eric's privileged status on this site. And therefore, we will perpetuate Eric's belief that he is exempt from most rules (even the ones that are clear-cut and strictly defined). ]] 20:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*:No surprise to see you here campaigning for a block, but three points:
*::Where have you see me complaining about the lack of a formal warning?
*::Where have you got the idea from that I'm the only one in dispute with Bloodofox?
*::What exactly do you think a 24-hour block would be likely to achieve? ] ] 20:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*:::I never claimed that either of your first two points were true. I never said that ''you'' complained about the lack of a formal warning, and I never claimed that you are the only person engaged in a dispute with Bloodofox. As for your last point, a 24-hour block would reinforce the fact that we actually have rules here, and when those rules are broken, the appropriate consequences are handed out as a result. This would achieve an outcome where editors are less likely to break the rules in the future, since they would know that the strictly defined rules of WP are actually enforced. ]] 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*::::Only in your dreams Scottywong. ] ] 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*:::::I agree. Consistently enforcing the strictly defined rules of WP is a very lofty and unrealistic goal. ]] 21:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
**That's not particularly helpful Scotty, and frankly it's soapboxing and drama mongering. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
***Thanks for your opinion. I disagree that enforcing the strictly defined rules of Misplaced Pages is soapboxing and drama mongering. Perhaps we just need to adapt the wording of 3RR to reflect the reality of when it is and isn't followed. I would suggest adding something to effect of: "Brand new editors are typically blocked immediately upon crossing the bright line of 3RR. Established editors (especially ones that have been blocked dozens of times in the past) are generally given the benefit of the doubt, even if they cross the bright line, especially if they are politically connected with administrators, or if they have become ] with the majority of active administrators." ]] 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
****If we were policemen or judges, then maybe that would make sense, but we aren't here to dispense ], only to solve problems. Oh, and write articles. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 21:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*****Do you agree that if rules were consistently enforced, it would prevent editors from breaking them? In other words, if violating 3RR always resulted in a minimum 24-hour block, regardless of the situation or who the editor is, would that result in a reduction in edit warring among established editors? Would that reduction in edit warring be beneficial to the project? Do you believe that blocking Eric would not be preventive, because Eric has shown that blocks have no effect on his behavior? ]] 21:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
******No Scotty, I don't. If that were the case, we could replace admin with bots. Plus bots never have axes to grind. We use humans because every situation is different and requires judgement. We pick humans to find the best ''solution'' to a problem. When you take a hardass approach to problems, you just reinforce the idea that they don't matter, they are nothing but little text generators, and if they punch up the wrong column too many times, '''''we are going to fucking spank you''''' and document that spanking in your <s>spank</s> block log. No thanks. I think we treat them like we want to be treated, as fallible human beings that will screw up from time to time. Once put on notice, as long as they don't screw up again, then no harm is done. If you do it again, oh well, you give us no choice but to block. Block is the last resort, not the first. Your lack of empathy is alarming sometimes. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 22:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*******The only human analysis that is required in the case of 3RR is to determine whether the editor was reverting vandalism. Beyond that analysis, the decision could be carried out by a bot. There is a reason that we describe 3RR using the phrase "bright line". The problem with adopting a more "human" approach to the application of strict rules is that if the humans are impartial. And, if the editor violating 3RR happens to be friends with the human admin analyzing the situation, then that editor enjoys increased flexibility in breaking the rules. The most laughable part of your comments above is how we need to put Eric "on notice" before blocking him. Which of the previous dozens of blocks would you consider not putting Eric "on notice"? How many "notices" does an editor get before we can reasonably assume that he is aware of the rules and is consciously breaking them anyway, because he knows he can get away with it because people like you consciously allow it? The corruption of your character is alarming sometimes, as is your lack of impartiality and sense of fairness. ]] 22:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
******And there lies the real reason as to why your persisting in this; the good old Eric witch hunt! ]] 22:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{ec}} I don't know the ins/outs nor correct procedures in this sort of situation - so my apologies if I'm acting incorrectly. I'm sure many are aware of Bloodofox's previous antagonism of Eric (I know I have seen Bloodofox state that if anyone requires help to go after Eric to contact him but unfortunately cannot find it at the moment, it was around the time there was a dispute concerning Malkin Tower. Bloodofox also reported Eric for 3RR at that time ). Kelpie is a featured article, Bloodofox maintains that one source used (Varner) is, in his opinion, an unreliable source. However, this source was found via Questia, a resource WMF has negotiated for editors to gain access to. Kyioweap decided this morning to tag every ref to Varner determining it, in their opinion, 'a weak source'. Why would Eric or I be expected to find additional sources when neither of us feel Varner is inappropriate/unreliable? ] - ] 20:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*I think this discussion should be speedily closed, or is it being deliberately kept open because Eric is the subject? ]] 21:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*:I think Scottywong is making that abundantly clear. ] ] 22:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*::I see you've acquired a new pawn. Congrats. ]] 22:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::::If that remark is directed at me, Scottywong - think again - I am no bodies 'pawn', never have been and never will be. Your remark is offensive, un-necessary and certainly un-becoming of an Administrator. ] - ] 22:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::To be clear, my remark was directed at Cassianto. ]] 23:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*:::Scotty, you need to stop, now. That is over the line badgering. Your behavior here is more disruptive than the little tit-for-tat on the article. You need to find something more productive to do. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 22:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
*], porting your old grudges here has been unhelpful from beginning to end. Also you don't get to issue personal attacks just because you're an admin, such as calling ] or ] (I took you to be referring to Cassianto, but your arrow was too wobbly for me to be sure) Eric's "pawn". Would you like a formal warning? Please note that I for my part don't normally post on Eric's page nor do I take take his side or anybody's side in the civility wars (in fact, fuck the civility wars), so if you're going to call me part of his entourage or whatever, we'll need diffs. ] &#124; ] 22:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
**Bishonen, I honestly have no idea who you are, so I couldn't possibly make a judgment as to whether or not you take anyone's side over and over again, finding a way to bend the rules for them every time their name comes up in a dispute. If you believe I deserve or require a formal warning or a block or some other consequence for my transgressions, then you don't need to seek my permission. But, I must admit that I'm rather confused by your admonishment for a perceived personal attack while in the next breath exclaiming, "fuck the civility wars". ]] 23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
***I"ve left a notice on your talk page Scotty. Calling my character corrupt, I consider that a personal attack, so you need to either back it up, or strike it. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 23:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
****In reality, I don't actually ''need'' to do anything. Nor do I intend to. ]] 23:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
***** So that's personal attacks on two separate editors in this discussion because they disagree with you? Do you think that's even slightly becoming of an administrator? ] 23:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
* Is it time for the semi-annual pointless "Eric" squabble??? Surely ya'll have heard "insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."? Can't we just skip to the end where everyone gets tired and disgusted (of the stupid squabble, not Eric per-se) and gives it up? Or do we have exchange barbs for hours to days and ''then'' give it up? <small>]</small> 23:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::Its already been going for days. Started at ] a couple days ago. There are still some offshoots of that brewing. ]] 23:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*Please note that I have taken this issue to ]. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 23:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::Let's close this as discussion is ongoing at the talk page. ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
:::No. All other discussions have been closed and this is all that is left. Eric did truly violate 3RR so:
:::'''Support block for 3RR violation''' and that alone.--] (]) 01:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}}.--] (]) 01:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ]&nbsp;<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)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|FelixRosch}}


== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
<!-- 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|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# - July 24, 2014 - (about Chronological sequence) # "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
# - July 24, 2014
# "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."
# - July 24, 2014
# - July 25, 2014 # "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)"
# - July 25, 2014
# - July 26, 2014
# - July 26, 2014
# - July 28, 2014
:<small>Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation</small>
<!-- 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: was warned months ago that this behavior is not the norm here. As seen on the ] - many concerns have been raised over a period of time.


<!-- 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:
FelixRosch has been involved in some talk page discussions but seem not to be willing to listen to others or perhaps simply does not understand. -- ] (]) 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*The editor is also involved in other edit wars on multiple pages as seen by the and . We have ], ], ] and ] behavior..that could all just be a ] as recently pointed out . ] and ] demonstrates his lack of understand of whats going on pretty well. -- ] (]) 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
# "Lady Saso: New Section"
# "Lady Saso: Reply"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*Since I made the competence remark I want to add it did not come out of the blue, but rather was the result of seeing many head-scratching remarks from this editor. He finally seemed to get BRD (perhaps) but adds . I didn't know Andrew Lih (who has no connection to the discussions whatsoever) holds such an exalted position here. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.


Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
*Only involved on ], but user does have some issues understanding policy such as ] and ]. In general, editing is becoming tendentious on Ukraine. Similar experience a few months ago on ], which I have since stopped following to preserve my mental health. While I cannot fully comment on edit warring accusations, there's certainly a lot of ] and general tendentiousness. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 02:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
*Like EvergreenFir, my only interaction with the editor has been through the Ukraine article and the Russia article (see ] in April) where s/he avoided discussion on the talk page and persevered with adding content contravening UNDUE, NOTNEWS and ] despite lengthy discussions on the talk page demonstrating consensus that these policies and guidelines were of primary concern, particularly in the context of the articles. Once forced into discussions, judging by the lack of comprehension of policies and thrust of the discussions, as already noted by Moxy and NeilN, I've also found myself wondering as to the competence of this user. It's difficult to ascertain whether this is a case of IDHT or truly IDONTUNDERSTANDIT. Either way, it amounts to ongoing disruptive editing. As an addendum, further to the question of competence, I've yet to work out where {{tq|"... the normal time frame of 48-72 hours should be allowed for the discussion comments to be collected of all editors involved."}} Where did the user find this timeframe for BRD processes? --] (]) 05:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
:*'''Result:''' No action. There might be a problem with the edits of ] but this report doesn't make the problem clear enough to do anything. It is hard to know which of the supplied diffs are actually reverts. Even if they are reverts, the complete list of edits doesn't add up to a timely report of 3RR violation. At most we have an editor who may be confused about policy and . Consider ] if you have a concern about this editor that can't be expressed briefly. ] (]) 17:34, 30 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.
== ] reported by ] (Result: semi) ==


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 ].
;Page: {{pagelinks|Rugby league}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Gibson Flying V}}


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


] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
# {{diff2|618915288|03:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Gibson Flying V. (])"
# {{diff2|618913354|03:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Gibson Flying V. (])"
# {{diff2|618911292|03:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 618910916 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|618665165|11:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 618663075 by ] (])"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|618917066|04:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Longtime editor of over 7 years is expected to know better. Has been blocked three times before for edit warring/disruptive editing, and has an in another sport area, association football. Editor is also attempting to when . This is a content dispute and not vandalism. —] (]) 04:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Similar edits from ] being reverted by two other users previously: The most cursory look at the edits in question reveals that they are inappropriate. They had also been discussed on my ]. Therefore consistently undoing their reversion is quite clearly disruptive. ] has a habit of involving him/herself with my edits. Not sure why. Probably due to previous content disputes between us. Stalking?--] (]) 04:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
:"habit of involving him/herself with my edits": I consider it an occupational hazard of keeping this a civil place. The revert you showed by the other editor gave the reason . The IP subsequently provided a reason, and nobody but yourself has reverted since, nor edit warred with the IP except for yourself. ] policy is quite clear: "Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism." Cheers.—] (]) 04:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
::As I said, "the most cursory look at the edits in question reveals that they are inappropriate." Cheers.--] (]) 04:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
::Meanwhile, since being warned I have stopped editing the article, whereas the intended target of this report has not, and their disruption has now been by a 3rd editor.--] (]) 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
::And now a .--] (]) 21:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
*No violation. Note #4 on the list is two days before the other three. Gibson appears to be within the bright line.--] (]) 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict) And from last month.--] (]) 21:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
:::The user of that obviously throw-away account is and has been for quite some time now. Would someone (perhaps ] as a sign of maturity and good faith) kindly oblige them and then close this hastily opened report?--] (]) 03:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

* {{AN3|p}} independently by ]. That looks like enough to take care of the immediate issue, though we could do with more collegiality and less sniping at each other. ], please read ] - vandalism is fairly narrowly defined. - ] <small>(])</small> 12:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
::] protected the page (''after'' becoming the 5th editor to revert ]'s disruption), citing "persistent vandalism" (and I have to say I agree with him). How this should not result in an apology from ], whose main concern is supposedly civility, is the real question here.--] (]) 21:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
::: We generally decline to try to force an apology out of any editor as it tends to end poorly. Gibson Flying V, issuing several blocks was definitely on the table as a potential solution to ongoing disruption, though the more conservative approach seems to be working for now. - ] <small>(])</small> 23:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 36 Hours ) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Kayastha}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kayastha Shiromani II}}

<!-- 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 />

In my defense, I have been inviting editors for discussion but no one seemed interested. The page has been subject to recent edit wars and I had reverted it to an earlier stable version. A topic has been started by me on the talk page and I would take this opportunity to again advice the editors to act responsibly and not aggressively. --] (]) 11:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
: See ] ] as well as I have attempted to discuss. The alleged "an earlier stable version" is not actually an earlier version, but a new version added by you. ] <sup> ] </sup> 11:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
:'''Comment by JJ:''' Invitation? Walk your talk, and ''discuss'', instead of revert. ] -] 12:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Relax, my friend. This is in fact one of the most stable version which stayed on for many years on wikipedia with minor changes here and there. Here is one instance https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kayastha&oldid=277047083. I thank you for crediting me with such scholarship. Also you can find the article in sync with this primary authentic source published in 1877. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AH0IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP9&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false. You are most welcome. --] (]) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|b|36 hours}} ] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Talk:Sega Genesis}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|77.97.151.145}}

<!-- 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: (note as this is a war ''on'' a talk page, discussion took place on user's talk page)

<u>Comments:</u> Attempt to start an RfC to rename the article to "Mega Drive". Not in itself problematic ''per se'', but the user has previously been blocked for similar discussions, and a long standing consensus is that new discussions that bring nothing to the table is disruptive. ] ] ] 17:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I stopped reverting, but ] and ] are colluding with one another and edit warring via each other also so they never hit 3RR, and Ritchie has already conceded he is fine with the RfC and the RfC is nothing to do with these users, it is to seek outside opinion as these users opinions are well known and they enforce their views on others with an iron fist ] (]) 17:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

:Let's correct the record, shall we? You stopped after the 4th revert, and then launched spurious ANIs against two of the three different editors who are tired of this nonsense (including one who is as British as your IP suggests you are). And yes, Ritchie said he was fine if no other editor reverted it. Well, one did, and you couldn't just let it go, so revert #4. Time to move on. --''']]''' 17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
::UPDATE: Sergecross73 has closed the ANI, so that is no longer an issue. The IP's behavior, unfortunately, still is. --''']]''' 17:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
*Indrian reverted him also. He has previously been reverted for starting this up yet again in the past. ] 17:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|one month}} by {{user|Sergecross73}}. This should be dealt with, now. --''']]''' 17:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Gamaliel}}

<!-- 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: Please see edit comment here:

<u>Comments:</u> I am an uninvolved observer and reporter. I don't believe I've ever crossed paths with either editor in this dispute. Gamaliel has been edit warring to change another editor's comments on ]. Given that he's admin, the behavior seems especially troubling.<br /> <!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->] (]) 23:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

While "change" is accurate, strictly speaking, I feel that description is misleading. I was attempting to remove, and then when that did not work, strike comments that I felt were uncivil, unproductive, and disruptive, directed towards a third party, ]. I feel this is well within my administrative purview and I've done so numerous times in the past. In the past when editors have persistently restored such incivility, I have locked the page or blocked them. In this case, I felt that the incivility was too mild for blocking (though still inappropriate, obviously) and that I was getting too heated. I was unfortunately negatively influenced by the recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the feeling among many editors and even administrators that one of our four pillars should not be enforced. So I decided to disengage, while noting to Cwobeel that I would take up the matter again if s/he wished. It's clear I handled this poorly, but given the loud opposition among a vocal minority to even mild enforcement of what is supposedly one of our core values, there are few options open to administrators who do not want to leave editors like Cwobeel at the mercy of negative behavior. Barring a complaint from Cwobeel, I considered this matter dropped before this report was even made. ] <small>(])</small> 23:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
::*For what it's worth, I have no desire to see this pursued. I don't think the comments needed removed and I don't think Gamaliel should have removed them over and over. That said, he did disengage and there is no harm done. I, like Gamaliel, could have probably handled it better but, as far as I'm concerned, it is a closed issue at this point. ] (]) 00:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
:::* If you consider this issue closed, then you should not have directed several comments at Cwobeel after posting here. If you want to drop it, a desire that I share, then that means you actually drop it. ] <small>(])</small> 03:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that prior to this, the other involved editor, ], bypassed 3RR on ] per BLP , though I contested Niteshift36's use of BLP for these reverts on the talk page. I didn't think it was a big deal (since consensus has changed from when the 4th revert was made, so the current version is fine), and I think that editor was clearly acting in good faith, but seemed relevant to this incident. ] (]) 23:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' – Is this the right board? Edit warring is discouraged because it disrupts the process of reaching consensus for edited articles. But consensus is not an issue for talk page content. The EW guidelines do not make this explicit, but IMO they do not apply. Rather, ] is the guidance and this discussion should be moved to the ANI. This is in accordance with ] number 8. – ] (]) 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
:* I have no objection if someone wants to bring this to ANI. It seems the appropriate forum, though no one seems to have any desire to prolong this. ] <small>(])</small> 03:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
:The initial two editors have calmly backed off, so I doubt any action over minor editwarring is required. (I have no further issue with the BLP reverts, given that.) ] is welcome to weigh in on the original redacted comments, of course. ] (]) 00:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
*Well, they can't accomplish it in the Middle East, but it looks like we have a ceasefire here. I would suggest a close. ] (]) 03:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|d}}. Although there are many things that bother me about the edit war, rather than go into specifics, given the disengagement, I'm just going to close this with no action.--] (]) 05:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|Philippine Arena}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|111.68.38.116}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|619158279|16:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 619157975 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|619156950|16:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 619156752 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|619147133|15:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 619146811 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|619146544|15:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 619145992 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|619143293|14:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 619141777 by ] (])"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|619147302|15:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|619157247|16:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

] is also involved in this. Both have received two edit warring notices, issued by me, on their user talk page. Both have ignored and continued to revert. ] is also involved, though from what I see they have not violated 3RR. I'm remaining mostly uninvolved, and have not edited the article at all. --''']''' (] &#124; ]) 16:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

*{{ #switch: p
|blocked| b = ] '''Blocked'''{{#if:|&nbsp;{{user|}}}}{{#if:|&nbsp;{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|indef|'''indefinitely'''|&ndash; for a period of '''{{{2}}}'''}}}}{{#if:|&nbsp;by {{user|{{{by}}}}}.}}
|bothblocked|blockedboth| bb = ] ] '''Both editors blocked'''{{#if:|&nbsp;{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|indef|'''indefinitely'''|&ndash; for a period of '''{{{2}}}'''}}}}{{#if:|&nbsp;by {{user|{{{by}}}}}.}}
|nomblocked|blockednom| nb = ] ] '''Nominating editor blocked'''{{#if:|&nbsp;{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|indef|'''indefinitely'''|&ndash; for a period of '''{{{2}}}'''}}}}{{#if:|&nbsp;by {{user|{{{by}}}}}.}}
|novio| no | nv = ] '''No violation'''
|novioexplain| noex| ner|nve = ] '''No violation''' &ndash; there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the ] to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.
|stale| s = ] '''Stale'''
|declined| d = ] '''Declined'''
|notblocked| not = ] '''Not blocked'''
|malformed| mr | m = ] '''Declined''' &ndash; malformed report. Please use the "Click here to add a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete ].
|protected| pp |p = ] '''Page {{#ifeq:|yes|semi-}}protected'''{{#if:|&nbsp;{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|indef|'''indefinitely'''| for a period of '''{{{2}}}'''}}}}{{#if:|&nbsp;by {{user|{{{by}}}}}.}}
|protectedexplain| ppe | pe = ] '''Page {{#ifeq:|yes|semi-}}protected'''{{#if:|&nbsp;{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|indef|'''indefinitely'''| for a period of '''{{{2}}}'''}}}}{{#if:|&nbsp;by {{user|{{{by}}}}}}} &ndash; there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider ].
|warned| w = ] '''{{#if:||Warned}}'''{{#if:|&nbsp;by {{user|{{{by}}}}}.}}
|already| ab | a = ] '''Already blocked'''{{#if:|&nbsp;{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|indef|'''indefinitely'''|&nbsp;for a period of '''{{{2}}}'''}}}}{{#if:|&nbsp;by {{user|{{{by}}}}}.}}
|comment| c = ] '''Comment'''{{#if:|&nbsp;&ndash; {{{2}}}}}
|note| n = ] '''Note'''{{#if:|&nbsp;&ndash; {{{2}}}}}
}}{{#switch:p|blocked|b|no|novio|nv||novioexplain|ner|nve|stale|s|declined|d|malformed|mr|m|protected|p|warned|w|ab|already|a|c|comment|n|note=|#default=}} for 72 hours. This is a long-running edit war that may involve more than these two IPs. Semi-protection appears the best fix. —''']''' (]) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Headlamp (outdoor)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Wtshymanski}}

<!-- 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:

]'s addition of ] The edit summary makes it clear that all of this has been derived from his observations of the stock in 'any' emporium. This is original research.

<!-- 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:
# First revert re adding Original research. He claims a 'Swart' reference, but nothing added is referenced.
# Second revert adding OR . Again he claims it is referenced but once again nothing he has added is referenced.
# Third revert adding OR . Now asking anyone to see the cite which has not been provided.

He then belatedly adds two references but only for two minor points that were already in the article ''before'' he added the original research. .

<!-- 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: . This receives the standard Wtshymanski response .

<!-- 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: . This is replied by an invitation to review the references that have not be provided .

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
This has not made 4RR. but this page is about ''Edit Warring'' and 3RR violations. An editor continually attempting to add original research is by definition ''edit warring''

] (]) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

* {{AN3|p}} ] is certainly occurring and 3RR is a sufficient but necessary bright line, but I think working it out on talk would be a better idea here. - ] <small>(])</small> 13:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Destiny (video game)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Refugez1}}

<!-- 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 />
User even reverted my attempts to engage them in discussion!
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. The new user's edit pattern was borderline vandalism, and that's pretty much all they did.--] (]) 04:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks but a new user account, ], has now popped up continuing the behaviour... -] (]) 06:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Occupational health psychology}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mrm7171}}

Previous version reverted to: ;

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

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

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

Slow moving edit war over the last few days, mostly over tagging, that has come to a more dramatic head in the past 24 hours. It is a continuation of pervious edit warring over the article that dates back some months - a voluntary topic ban for the last four months kept things quiet, but that recently ended. Both participants are well aware of 3RR. - ] (]) 02:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

:This heated discussion very much involves editor Bilby long term also who appears very much '''onside''' with iss246 & psyc12. Recently discussion has involved Bilby, psyc12, and recently a new independent editor inediblehulk. My reverts have been in response to iss246 reverting independent editor's good faith contributions and everyone else's contributions for the past couple of days back to HIS version against all consensus!] (]) 04:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. {{ping|Bilby}} you mentioned both participants, but you reported only one. When I look at the recent history of the article, what stands out is that two editors are edit-warring. Why did you not report the other user?--] (]) 05:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
::I did - the second editor was reported separately just below. - ] (]) 05:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I saw that after I left the note and started scrolling down. I attempted to self-revert my note, but you beat me to it. It really would have been better to report them in one section.--] (]) 05:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
::::Sorry about that. The format seemed to better suit two reports, and I wasn't expecting someone to sneak in between. :) Next time I'll make sure to treat it as one report, and I'm happy to merge if it will assist. - ] (]) 05:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

:Must apologize today for losing my cool with iss246 deleting every other editor's work back to HIS version. But I was standing up for another good faith editor, inediblehulk, that Iss246 kept deleting for no apparent reason. I guess it was my protective nature and the fact that editor Bilby also an administrator did not stop iss246 from deleting this editor's good faith additions. In fact, again Bilby has completely ignore iss246 deleting this editor's work.

Editor inediblehulk also tried reverting back the changes he made, only to have iss246 delete them again, for no reason. In past disputes Bilby has been very much on the side of psyc12 & iss246 in this extremely controversial article. Please also see my discussion here with inediblehulk on his talk page.





I admit I also 'stand up to' bullies in real life too! Again, today's reverts were a combination of administrator '''Bilby taking no steps toward cooling things down''' and me standing up for editor inediblehulk's and other editors being continually deleted by iss246.] (]) 05:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The other day, for instance, Bilby was part of the discussion, and clearly saw iss246 breach the 3revert rule. Bilby chose to completely ignore it? I had thought perhaps, as an administrator, Bily may have reported iss246 here at that that point? I will collate the diffs and add these to support my claims.] (]) 05:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
:Please see this diff relating to the multiple reverts iss246 made the other day. Bilby was involved then and again, did nothing.] (]) 05:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

:When first occurred, comments on the talk page led me to believe that you were each stepping back, so I chose not to report it then. When the issue reoccured over the last day or so I felt that it needed to be raised, as it was clear that it was (once more) an ongoing problem. Hence my decision to bring both editors here for independent review. - ] (]) 05:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
::Bilby, why did you not take steps earlier and stopped iss246 from deleting editor inediblehulk's good faith contributions? It would have helped. Why did you also not inform me of this post here, as required, but sat their collecting all the diffs and then reporting here, without notifying me?] (]) 05:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Just my opinion, but given you have always been involved in this controversial article Bilby, you too appear very much involved in edit warring, like everyone else. Bit rich, to be standing back and pointing the finger? My only crime was standing up for inediblehulk's contributions. Which, as i said, if you were in fact neutral, in any way, and as an admin you should have stopped. I thought, wow, Bilby the admin, sits here and sees iss246 delete/blank everyone else's work and does nothing. But behind the scenes is cxollecting diffs and then pointing fingers! Wow. No, you seem heavily involved, as much involved if not more than everyone else. Espoecially given your rights and responsibilities as an admin!] (]) 05:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|six months}}.--] (]) 05:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Palomar College}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|SimMoonXP}}

<!-- 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 /> Also, SimMoonXP deleted 3RR warning from their Talk page , deleted the Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion from their Talk page , and additionally deleted the discussion of the subject on the article talk page .

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->] (]) 02:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}.--] (]) 05:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Occupational health psychology}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Iss246}}

Previous version reverted to: ;

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]

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

Slow moving edit war over the last few days, mostly over tagging, that has come to a more dramatic head in the past 24 hours. It is a continuation of pervious edit warring over the article that dates back some months - a voluntary topic ban for the last four months kept things quiet, but that recently ended. Both participants are well aware of 3RR. - ] (]) 02:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

:On this noticeboard on March 25, in the aftermath of his inserting of a long series of disruptive edits, an administrator asked Mrm7171 to desist from editing the ] (OHP) entry in lieu of being banned from participating in Misplaced Pages. He agreed not to edit the OHP entry. He recently returned to again launch a series of off-beat edits (e.g., claiming that the OHP article is US-centric). His editing of the OHP entry should stop. ] (]) 03:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
::First, it would be nice if you provided a diff or link to that discussion. Second, your edit warring in return is not the right way to handle this.--] (]) 05:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Finally found the damned thing. It's not ''this'' noticeboard. It was at ] . Although the outcome of that discussion clearly was unfavorable to Mrm7171, I still don't see how it entitles you to "enforce" it by edit warring.--] (]) 05:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}}.--] (]) 05:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Eastern Orthodox Church}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Elizium23}}

<!-- 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:
See history page.

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

<!-- 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 />

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

There is a clear problem with the Eastern Orthodox Church article. One or a handful of editors thinks that the Eastern Orthodox Church has an official name of the Orthodox Catholic Church. Since there is no sole head of the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is impossible that there could be an official anything. This small group of editors haunts this page and revert edits anyone who dares change the article. There is a long record of them edit warring over this. One editor Not only revert edited me, he also went and revert edited another edit I made to an unrelated article out of hostility. And he apparently also immediately summoned a friend admin to threaten me as well. {{userlinks|Jim1138}}. This gang mentality on Misplaced Pages has to stop. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:I have made four reverts in four days. The dispute has been hashed and rehashed and re-re-rehashed on the Talk page and many pixels spilled can be found in the archive regarding this exact point of contention in the article. The accuser here is unwilling to abide by overwhelming consensus. Now the question remains whether he is a new editor here or if the previous reverts belong to him as well. At any rate, at this point in time, there is really no edit warring to address here and this is ] at its finest. I trust that {{user|Jim1138}}'s attention will bear good fruit and this dispute will be resolved peacefully. ] (]) 04:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
{{AN3|m}} I can't believe you responded to this unholy mess.--] (]) 05:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
::In case this dispute comes back again, I fixed some of the problems so the report is less malformed. ] (]) 13:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: semi) ==
] appears to be continuing the fight resolved above, i.e. ], under a new account.
Apologies if this isn't how you report an incident like this but going thru the 3RR stuff again seemed superfluous. -] (]) 06:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

* Blocked as an obvious sock puppet and semi-protected the article. For such a simple case, this is fine, though generally the full report makes reviewing a case easier. - ] <small>(])</small> 13:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Mawlid}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Abu reiss}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|619199722|22:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverting Vandalism Undid revision 619194889 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|619176316|18:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Stop pushing a term thats not even in the source Undid revision 619171409 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|619170907|18:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 619136226 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|619024053|20:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Practice */"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|619171649|18:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|619172053|18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|619195187|21:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|619271017|10:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Mawlid */ new section"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

The user id is just created to push the term wahabbi. No efforts to improve the article. I think he feels that it is a derogatory term for salafists and just want to put it there. Not trying to engage in any discussion. ] (]) 11:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

* {{AN3|p}} Edit-protected for one week. You are both edit warring. Neither term seems to this outside observer to be derogatory, but I could easily be missing some nuance. ], please read ] - Rameshnta909 is editing in good faith. Please work this out on the talkpage before protection expires. If agreement is reached, unprotection may be requested at ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 13:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Godfather}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ring Cinema}}

<!-- 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 />

This report is specifically for edit warring behavior, not violating 3RR. Ring Cinema recently came off of a month-long block for edit warring (see here ) and took up with the same behavior at the article in question since last week. His history of edit warring and block for same is long (see here ). In this particular case, ] has been more than patient in trying to work and reason with Ring Cinema over content disputes. Others - including myself - have attempted to step in with editing the article in a productive manner based on consensus on the talk page and the content Disc Wheel has added to the article. Ring Cinema continues to attempt to block everything Disc Wheel adds and edits along with returning the article to the version he prefers, even while discussion is still proceeding on the article talk page. '''This is an ongoing and continuing issue''', which is why I provided three diffs to discussions at the article talk page. He was already warned a few days ago by ] that a block for edit warring behavior would be forthcoming if things didn't change. They haven't changed, they've just been delayed with the behavior starting up again yesterday. I did undo Ring's revert because of continuing discussion and dispute resolution in process. That reversion was undone by another editor. This issue just continues to go around in circles with nothing productive accomplished because of lack of cooperation and the continued edit warring behavior by the editor being reported. At the very least, having the article preventively locked to stop the edit warring would be nice. What would be even nicer is if Ring Cinema would understand that edit warring behavior, his tendency to article ownership, and his continual filibustering and wiki-lawyering is harmful and just needs to stop. Permanently. So far, he doesn't seem to understand this or care to understand this. As a result, editing articles he lays claim to is a nightmare experience. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 19:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Frankie Grande}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|JHUbal27}}

<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#
#
# plus three reverts by IP addresses that are probably the same user

<!-- 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 />

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours. This dispute was also reported at ]. Since it's a classic violation of 3RR we might as well take action here. ] (]) 00:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Vandalism

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

    • I am going to advise that we delay any action here until Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shecose is resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      That is because CNMall41's only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this is block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Shecose, to satisfy his personal ego (above and in Special:Diff/1268349248 too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Categories: