Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:05, 28 May 2015 editBlack Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,237 edits →User:Ahunt reported by User:41.224.101.46 (Result: ): closed← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,722 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{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 = 282 |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: Topic bans under ARBMAC) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Posavina Canton}} <br /> {{pagelinks|Sokollu Mehmed Pasha}}<br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|AnulBanul}}
<!-- 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:'''
User:AnulBanul has been edit-warring with several wikipedia users on multiple articles, including with me.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
On ], he/she the Bosnian language translation behind the Croatian and Serbian translation in the intro. The country is called BOSNIA and Herzegovina, not Serbia or Croatia. If Croatian and Serbian translations are necessary, I would think they would follow the BOSNIAN translation, since that is the country after all. I his/her edit, only to have him-her with "''Nope..''" as the explanation for the reversal. I reverted that and wrote "''"Nope" is no where near a decent explanation for this POV mess you're trying to create all over wikipedia''", in reference to the constant edit wars and edits that this user makes, which are often reverted by several users. The user reverted me again, claiming that Bosnia is merely a "Region" and not a country. On ], the user posted this: ''"Bosnian translation goes first because Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country? What kind of logic is that? Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have official languages, even if it does, Bosnian still wouldn't be numero uno. :D''" (He-She added a cute little smiley face at the end of the post for no reason. Bosnia-Herzegovina DOES, in fact, have official languages, contrary to User:AnulBanul's uneducated claim.
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
On ] (which the user has an obsession with, I'm assuming he-she lives/lived there), the is self-explanatory.


On ], I some users attempts to Serbianze a 16th century Bosnian man. User:AnulBanul reverted me, claiming that the Bosnian language didn't exist in the 1500s, but that ] did, it just wasn't called Serbo-Croatian. ?????????? Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian is literally the same language. How does AnulBanul think this is logical to say that Bosnian didn't exist back then in any shape or form, but Serbo-Croatian did. EXCUSE ME??!? I reverted that and wrote ''"It's interesting that you makes excuses for the Serbo-Croatian "language"'s existence but Bosnian didn't exist; I never denied that the Serbian Orthodox existed, I said that there is no proof that he was part of that specific denomination."'' The user and wrote the very mature and professional summary "''what the hell was he?! A Chinese Orthodox?''".--] (]) 05:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:The country is Bosnia and Herzegovina, however, Bosnian language is one spoken by Bosniaks - Bosniam Muslims, and it is not an official language, since Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have official languages. Moreover, Croats and Serbs have equal status to Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and all three languages are equal in that sense. Moreover, we're talking only about three different standardisations of one ] language. Croats make majority in Posavina Canton, and are followed by Serbs, and then Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks. Your interpretation on language order is hardly acceptable and against customs, which can be confirmed by other users. Regardless, I have been careful not to violate the 3RR rule and explained my reverts where necessary. In this case, I believe the explanation was hardly necessary, especially after silly explanation that Bosnia is a country, and that's the reason why Bosnian language should come first. It's just stupid, sorry.


:Nobody tried to "serbianize" a 16th century Ottoman man. But, it is important to note that he made his brother - ], the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church and reestablished it. You may say he was an alien, it's your opinion. Mehmed-pasha had a South Slavic, Serbian origin. Bosnian language is a late 20th century political innovation, Serbo-Croatian however, did exist, but its name was coined only later after national identities have been shaped in 19th century. Moreover, it is actually you who started reverting edits, and not me. --] (]) 07:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}} {{ping|Dragodol}} You listed the same article three times at the top, so I removed the two dupes. Based on the body of your complaint, I assume it was a mistake and that you intended to list other articles. Feel free to add them to the top of this report for clarity.--] (]) 13:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
::Thank you, ]. Yes, it was a mistake.--] (]) 04:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::'''Comment:''' When people start in the article lead we can interpret this as nationalist edit warring. Both AnulBanul and Dragodol have been alerted about ], and . (Dragodol used to be Sabahudin9). I propose a three-month topic ban for both editors from everything to do with ]. ] (]) 05:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
::::It is a common practice to add languages of geographical/political territories based on percentage of certain population living there. There's nothing nationalist about that. However, user Dragodol got an idea that Bosnian should be mentioned everywhere first (!), because Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country. What does that even mean? Bosnia and Herzegovina is a ''sui generis'' country, with no official language, with three "constituent peoples" treated as equal - Bosniaks speak Bosnian, Croats Croatian and Serbs speak Serbian standard of one language, and all three languages or standards have equal status. What other solution could I have then to add languages in order based on the number of certain ethnic group living there, as these versions will be more common than those used by minority groups, therefore, it is only logical to add more common versions first, and others later. Regardless, I edited those few pages, expanded them etc, and there comes Dragodol with crazy idea of his that Bosnian should come first everywhere because Bosnia is a country... what is that? --] (]) 14:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::]'s response is not persuasive, and ] has not edited since the notice. If there is nothing more within 24 hours after my post I'll go ahead with the topic bans. ] (]) 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
User:AnulBanul's edits are often reverted by other users. His/her edits have been called "disruptive", by other users and by me.--] (]) 06:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:It's only by you. --] (]) 12:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Both editors are banned for three months from anything to do with ] per ]. Details on the user talk pages ] (]) 13:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Professional wrestling in Australia}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|121.219.135.128}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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. -->
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)


Previous version reverted to: '''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)


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


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


<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 />
<!-- 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: ]]


] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
<u>Comments:</u> <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)
::{{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) ==
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
This dispute ranges wider but the core problem is the IP who keeps on screaming in his edit summary that this event section (WWE Global Warning) was shown on pay per view and he saw it in Vietnam. His only note is to give a non inline reference to Vietnam pay TV as well as use sources that I introduced originally as back up. OldSkool01 has been reverting him the most, referencing what he states are better and more reliable sources (although as a side note he did manipulate one and as good as admits it on the talk page of the article in question). I'm not touching that section of the core article until this is properly resolved and the IP has to be blocked to start with as it isn't helping in the debate between myself and OldSkool01. It would help - if the admin is prepared to - if said admin could pop a third opinion on the manipulation problem, but I'll understand if that has to be set aside and mentioned elsewhere. ] (]) 10:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} and page protected as well. ], ], ] 03:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-Protected) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Scott La Rock}} <br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|86.180.157.12}}


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


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


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
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. -->


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
<u>Comments:</u> The tone of the article seemed unencyclopedic, so I tweaked it. It was then reverted by the above IP twice without explanation in either edit summary, so I then suggested that s/he respond on the article's talk page. After that, a ''new'' IP who might be the same user ({{u|109.144.129.8}}) performed the same revert. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 02:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{AN3|p}} 1 week. ], ], ] 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::Would it be all right to revert to then? '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 02:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
#
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ghouta chemical attack}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Erlbaeko}}


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Previous version reverted to:
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)
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#


: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)
<!-- 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:


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
<u>Comments:</u> Pretty clear violation of 1RR on an article to which general sanctions apply on two consecutive days. Complicating matters somewhat is that one of the parties in this dispute appears to be a blocked editor "contributing" as an IP, although that is unconfirmed (and Erlbaeko has reverted other editors, myself included, as well during this whole dustup). This might be the wrong place to note it, but I do feel this article requires some attention from administrators, as this kind of unproductive editing has not been uncommon in the page's history. -] (]) 15:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)<br />


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
Admin ] has been addressing this issue . -] (]) 18:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:Imo, it is not a violation of the 1RR-restriction, nor is it a violation of usual 3RR-restriction.
:# , is an attempt to find a third version. It is also a revert of .
:# , is a revert of .
:# , is a revert of .
:# , is a revert of .
:Yes, 2 reverts is made whithin a 24 hour period, but at least one of them are IP-edits. As EdJohnston have explained, reverts of IP editors doesn't count according to the 1RR-restriction on Syrian Civil War related pages, but are subject to usual rules on edit warring. Ref. ]. ] (]) 00:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 31 hours) ==
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of European countries by median wage}} <br />
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kristijan Đorđević}}


== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
Previous version reverted to:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
Diffs of the user's reverts:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}
#
#
#
#


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


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, but twice on his talk page: and


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
#
*In the last days I have been advised twice by IP:] that this user was "vandalising" without apparent reason sourced content of another article (]), but he did not insisted with his edits there, so I took no action. Today I noticed that he edited in the same way (swapping the median wages of Italy and Malta) a very similar article without sourcing or commenting his edit, so per ] I reverted him, asking him on the article's edit summary for reliable sources, but he wrote the following comment on my talk page (). I reverted him again asking another time for sources (), and he answered in this way () commenting below yesterday`s request for help of the IP. In the meantime, I had searched on the eurostat web site until I found a source which shows that he is wrong. I invited him on his talk page to check the source() but, instead of discussing, he reverted the article again with the following comment (), where he pretends that he does not need sources, because this fact is "well known". In the last few months is not the first time that I meet this user, and each time he is editing disruptively, changing arbitrarily content regarding Italy, disregarding sources and accusing others of nationalism (it is funny to notice that some days ago I have been accused by another Italian user of being a "traitor of my homeland" :-)). I think that if he continues in this way a topic ban would be appropriate. Thank you, ] (]) 18:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
*Addendum:the reported user just "menaced" me on my talk page (). it is also noteworthy to notice that he sistematically does not sign his edits. ] (]) 07:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}}. ], the user has broken the 3RR rule, but I don't like to block him for that, since you were edit warring too, just as much, really; he simply got to four reverts sooner because he started it. And you too have not used the article talkpage. Another time, I advise you to post on article talk (discussion via edit summaries is discouraged), warn sooner, report sooner, and revert less. You don't have to wait for a user to violate 3RR before reporting; if it's obvious that they intend to continue reverting, admins will be interested. Anyway, in view of the respective posts on your userpages, and the lack of edit summaries from ], I have blocked him for disruptive editing. ] &#124; ] 11:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC).


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi) ==


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Kwasi_Kwarteng}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|194.60.38.201}}


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


I 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.
Previous version reverted to:


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
<!-- 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:
#
#


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)
<!-- 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:


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
<!-- 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 user keeps instantiating an unsourced claim about the subjects private life. I attempted to remove the line with full justification myself, and was also reverted.<small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:48, 26 May 2015 </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->
:] 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)
The there was no attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page. The link provided above shows that 109.152.234.14 reverted without talk. He/she is probably the same person as 109.156.108.31 who edit-warred with 194.60.38.201.
::"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) ==
Diffs of reverts by 194.60.38.201:
# Deleted: He is in a relationship with fellow Conservative MP ], the ].{{citation needed}}
# Deleted: He is in a relationship with fellow Conservative MP ], the ].{{citation needed}}
# Deleted: where he won the ]
# Deleted: He is in a relationship with fellow Conservative MP ], the ].{{citation needed}}
# Deleted: where he won the ]
# Deleted: He is in a relationship with fellow Conservative MP ], the ].{{citation needed}}
--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 20:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Semiprotected three months per ]. An IP from 109.* was repeatedly adding an unsourced claim about the MP's private life. ] (]) 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Economic history of Chile}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Dentren}}


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


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


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see ], open since 2 February 2015.


:'''Comment:''' I tried had a discussion with the IP editor on their talk page about misunderstandings on the definition on 'environment' which they seemed to come around on. But then they started adding in and edit warring there . Blatant troll ]. ] (]) 02:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
: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)
Slomo edit warring, sort it.
: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) ==
User Dentren refuses any agreement and deletes all referenced information that rebukes his POV.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
There is also a case in ]


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
--<span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">] <small>(])</small></span> 21:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:Actually I was Keysanger who has been showing an intrasigent behavious since he ]. I am solely holding these controversial changes (that are off-topic and irrelevant to the article) back until a consensus is reached. Likely this will happebn with help from outside. The stable pre-February version needs to remain until the dispute is settled. ] | ] 21:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::'''Comment:''' It looks like 6-9 reverts by each party since 24 May. Most changes are more than 1,000 bytes. This is a case of edit warring. Can you explain why both editors should not be blocked? ] (]) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Current reverts date from May. Dispute dates from February, I haven't had time before to address properly Keysangers massive unilateral changes. ] | ] 21:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::::I have time and explain my changes. Dentren says that he has no time to colaborate correctly with Misplaced Pages. --<span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">] <small>(])</small></span> 09:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Both blocked 24 hours. The saga of the ] continues. It's a very-long-running dispute, and may eventually require topic bans. ] (]) 13:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|James Rhodes (pianist)}}
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Lightinlondon}}
# {{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:'''
;Previous version reverted to:


;Diffs of the user's reverts:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|664183460|21:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} "The person that keeps making the change to give more detail about the ex-wife, clearly cares nothing about the welfare of innocent children. Think about your actions."
# {{diff2|664183036|21:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} "The person that keeps making the change to give more detail about the ex-wife, clearly cares nothing about the welfare of innocent children. Please think about your actions."
# {{diff2|664182240|21:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Once again, removed unnecessary detail about the ex-wife that could easily lead to her identification and therefore, identification of her son, causing him harm. The UK Supreme Court stated that the identity of the mother and son should be not be revealed"
# {{diff2|664180918|21:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Removed unnecessary detail about ex-wife that could lead to her identification and therefore, lead to the identification of the son which would jeopardize his safety and well-being."
# {{diff2|664177025|21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} "The Supreme Court of the UK has explicitly stated that the mother and son should not be identified in this case (to protect the identity of the son). Adding details about his mother compromises that well-being and safety of the son."
# {{diff2|664175861|20:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|664183170|21:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! (])"
# {{diff2|664183298|21:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|664183593|21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Name of ex-wife */ reply"


Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
;<u>Comments:</u>
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
There are attempts to reach a talkpage consensus, however they are not engaging in it- the current consensus appears to be against their views. ] (]) 22:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, the article talkpage now has evidence from ] that their assertion "he UK Supreme Court stated that the identity of the mother and son should be not be revealed" is not correct. New editor, but not working collaboratively, and it appears misguided in their information. ] (]) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
It seems that the diffs above that were reversions by ] were in fact him/her reverting a blatant BLP issue. I have corrected the BLP issue for now, and have opened a talk page section regarding the information that is contentious about a living person. It is my understanding that when reverting BLP issues, they do not always count in a 3RR situation. I hope that all the editors involved can join in a civil talk page discussion about BLP issues in this article. Cheers! ] (]) 00:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
:Yes, except for that fact that everyone else at ] seems to agree that it isn't a BLP violation. Also, their reasoning wasn't correct either- they were removing it based on an out-of-date Supreme Court judgement. ] (]) 09:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:::ummm, No you have that line of events incorrect Joseph2302. Administrator @CambridgeBayWeather agreed that the article needed to be protected for one week from editing by IP's and un-registered editors. Cheers! ] (]) 10:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Yes, but all other editors disagree. You're just trying to cover your tracks since you've reverted 5 times in 3 hours. ] (]) 10:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:::::No again! The only administrator to have weighed in so far @CambridgeBayWeather protected this article for one week for the BLP issues at the article. You are guilty of not assuming ] for mis-representing this entire situation. Cheers! ] (]) 10:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Now semiprotected by ]. Anyone who wants to comment further on the BLP issue should go to ]. ] has recently and this appears to be beneficial. ] (]) 17:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|State of Somaliland}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hadraa}}


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


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


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


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


Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
: *Sigh*, I haven't broken 3RR. For starters, isn't even a revert but rather me adding a cat. Can someone just block Hadraa indefinitely at this point? He has caused a lot disruption these past few days (see the page itself and ]). It also turns out that he is even a sock of the banned user ], more on that soon. ] (]) 23:39, 26 May 2015 (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)
first of all stop acusing me of someone iam not and second of all look at page


== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
# 02:55,26 May 2015
# 22:52, 26 May 2015
# 22:54, 26 May 2015
# 23:58, 26 May 2015‎ . <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Haha, I was reverting vandalism; which ]. Better luck next time. ] (]) 00:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
first acussing me of someone else and now all your reverting is vandalism you even used a rasis map based on clans in Somaliland page and never answered.] (]) 00:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
:I honestly hope you didn't mean "racist" when you typed "rasis". ] (]) 00:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
# "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
# "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Bajo el mismo cielo (telenovela)}}
#: "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."
;User being reported: {{userlinks|ClaraReyes11}}
# "Lady Saso: Reply"


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
# {{diff2|664204496|01:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664204083 by ] (]) Telemundo press release states that the show is based on "A Better Life" here is link"
# {{diff2|664203786|01:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664152804 by ] (])"
# {{diff|oldid=664006382|diff=664144926|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC) to 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|664144006|17:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Added English translation"
## {{diff2|664144926|17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""


Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|664154121|18:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} "]Created page with '== Bajo el mismo cielo == Hello, you could add references the next time you add information to an article?. Remove references to add information is not correct a...'"
# {{diff2|664204471|01:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Bajo el mismo cielo */"


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


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 ] 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 ].
;<u>Comments:</u>


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
The user removes references without any reason and adds information without reliable sources. Already leave you a message, but did not seem to matter. I hope some administrator to do something. Thank you. <font face="Myriad Web">''']''' <span style="color:dark blue">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></font> 01:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


] (]) 15:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|James Rhodes (pianist)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|131.191.80.213}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|664209642|02:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664209468 by ] (])WordSeventeen is abusing policy to censor- there is no BLP issue whatsoever."
# {{diff2|664209301|02:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664209073 by ] (])m /* Early career */ . There is no blantant BLP issue here. WordSeventeen is abusing the BLP policy . UK Supreme Court is a solid source."
# {{diff2|664208557|02:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664208345 by ] (]) There is no BLP issue here at all. Read the policy. UK Supreme Court is a solid source."
# {{diff2|664207193|01:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Career */ Reinstated public material that is sourced to UK Supreme Court website; it is neither libelous nor contentious to include this material"
# {{diff2|664183552|21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664183460 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|664182359|21:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664182240 by ] (]) UK Supreme Court decision provides info that ex-wife is American novelist https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0251-press-summ"
# {{diff2|664181260|21:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664180918 by ] (]) The UK Supreme Court decision (https://www.supremecourt.uk/clearly identifies ex-wife as an American novelist. That is public information."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|664208743|02:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}}

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

;<u>Comments:</u>
::The above is a misrepresentation. Additional relevant discussion pertaining to the "edit warring" claim is at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as well as above on this page at User:Lightinlondon reported by User:Joseph2302. The consensus at the Notice Board is that there was no "blatant BLP violation" as WordSeventeen claimed when he began the edit war, which led to him making more than 3 reversions in just 3 hours (listed in the NoticeBoard discussion). There were attempts at reasoned discussion on the talk page. Additionally, an additional secondary (non-primary) citation was added to the one already provided as the discussion on the talk page seemed to indicate doing so would address WordSeventeen's "blatant BLP" claim. After adding the additional non-primary citation, the paragraph WordSeventeen had censored as a "blatant BLP" violation was then re-added. However, another reverted that addition. <br />

::Although I had suggested (on the talk page) that WordSeventeen take the issue to the Notice Board rather than revert the addition (as there was no BLP violation, blatant or otherwise), that person did not do that. So I brought the issue to the Notice Board. The incidences mentioned above by Tigearn happened hours before WordSeventeen claimed a "blatant BLP violation" on the page. The statements above misstate the situation. The situation has been misrepresented by both Tigearn above as well as WordSeventeen in that person's claim of the application of 3 reversions.
::The relevant evidence for my statements here is primarily on the talk page but also on the NoticeBoard as well as in the editing comments made with talk page edits and the main James Rhodes Misplaced Pages article. WordSeventeen consistently showed an inability to reason carefully, or to process anything stated on the talk page carefully, including what was already on the talk page before WordSeventeen even began making edits on the main Misplaced Pages page. In my opinion, the claim of a "blatant BLP violation" at best reflects WordSeventeens grave misunderstanding of what constitutes a "BLP violation" of any kind, as well as a misunderstanding of policy relating to how to handle such matters. At worst, the claim represents WordSeventeen's blatant abuse of a (completely unsubstantiated) claim that there was a "blatant BLP violation" to censor what material appeared on the page. <br />

::'''WordSeventeen's own history of more than 3 reversions in the past 24 hours on that page needs to be investigated.''' Those reversions are itemized by another editor in the notice board discussion of this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#James_Rhodes
::What also needs to be investigated is whether there is any pattern of the editors involved joining in to support one another, even when there is no basis for the initial actions.

::What happened in this incident is a good example of Misplaced Pages gone bad. WordSeventeen came in claiming "blatant BLP" violation (but failed to ever make clear what his objection was; another editor claimed it was due to lack on non-primary citation, but one non-primary citation was originally provided), when there was absolutely none. WordSeventeen was either incapable of engaging in reasoned discussion on the talk page, or was unwilling to do so. Unfortunately, two other editors also chimed in with misunderstandings of the BLP policy. When an attempt was made to fix their objections to the paragraph, which on the talk page was stated to be the lack of multiple non-primary citations (one non-primary, solid citation (The Guardian) was originally provided), that corrected version of the paragraph was removed. Then WordSeventeen misrepresented what happened in the incident, claimed edit warring (when in fact WordSeventeen had engaged in this initially), and requested the page be locked. My conclusion is that this incident, including all that happened on the page (esp. by WordSeventeen) and the edit warring claim which is made here by Tigern, represent a gross twisting of the facts, and blatant abuse of the BLP policy.
:Incidents like these are what keeps many people with solid writing and thinking ability from participating in Misplaced Pages at all. The consensus on the Notice Board pages is that that was no BLP violation whatsoever in the paragraph WordSeventeen removed initially.
::Please note there is discussion of WordSeventeen's actions as an editor over at the Administrator's Noticeboard which includes his actions on the James Rhodes Page so perhaps that will address my concerns about what happened in the incident that involved me. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_from_User:WordSeventeen] (]) 16:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
<small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
] (]) 15:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC) </small>
* {{AN3|p}} per a report higher up on this page. ] (]) 12:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|John Forbes Nash, Jr.}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winkelvi}}


Previous version reverted to: n/a -- this involves at seven reverts to separate edits over the past 30 or so hours.

<!-- 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:
#Edit made by {{user|InedibleHulk}} at
#:Reverted by WV at
#Edit made by Hulk at
#:Reverted by WV at
# Edit by {{user|Hipporoo}} at
#:Reverted by WV at
#Edit by {{user|Newone}} at
#:Revert at
#Series of edits made by multiple editors
#:Reverted at
#Another series of edits
#:Reverted at
#Edit by {{user|JackFrondas}} at
#:Reverted at


<!-- 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: By me at , which promptly reverted .

<!-- 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: There are threads on several of the issues on the talk page, but this is a pattern on edit warring. I myself have not edited the page. The user in question should know better as he has been blocked three times for edit warring in the past year. ] ]&#124;] 03:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

*I got pinged this way, so I'll note that the dust from my particular war with this guy has settled. I still contend nobody should be happy in a compromise, and he that cooperation is beneficial to society, but those simmering tensions have nothing to do with ]. That's ancient history. Today, we're good. ] ] 04:03, ], ] (UTC)
** {{u|InedibleHulk}} Dude, that's the great "motor vehicle" war. ] (]) 20:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:::That's the great thing about ]: we never have to agree on the "real" name. ] ] 00:11, ], ] (UTC)
*'''Comments and diffs''' A content dispute was the bulk of the edits and reverts yesterday -- discussion followed here: . A compromise was agreed upon, and all was well (see here: ). Not to mention there have been a butt-load of edits since the content dispute which were great, didn't involve me at all, and have remained since they were executed (see history of edits here and here ). Today's edits reverted by me were explained succinctly in the edit summary -- all were based on policy or due to errors in the content added/removed. I don't really see what the problem is. Especially considering the response I received from JackTheVicar here in the edit summary and here at the article talk page ; I responded thusly ; he responded in this manner and then like this at his talk page ''"get off my talk page you obsessive article-owning harassing weirdo. do not post here again"''. JTV edited boldly, I reverted for reasons stated in my edit summaries, he refused to discuss, Indeed, he chose to personally attack me at the article talk page as well as in the section title. At this time, even after I attempted to get him to discuss his concerns, he has further responded negatively and in a non-cooperative manner, never discussing the article content at all . Just more personal attacks.
:I do wonder why Calidum now finds it necessary to dog my edits and add warning templates on my talk page at the first possible opportunity he finds in regard to articles he's neither involved in nor has he ever edited. When he is not bringing me here to this noticeboard he's bringing me to AN where nothing comes of it. Why? Because he's concerned about disruption or he really wants to see me sanctioned/blocked in a bad way? In other words, what's the motivation? -- <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> 04:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

:Edit warring is repeated reverts ''on the same content'', not frequent reverts. If there is any of that here, it's lost among the rest and it would help to clean up the complaint. One could allege an ownership problem, but I don't see a case for that. I haven't looked very deep into it, but what I've seen looks like someone who disagrees with a lot of edits, and reverts them per routine BRD, but is willing to follow the rest of BRD to resolve the disagreements. Nothing wrong with that. In any case, this is not the venue for ownership complaints. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
::Per ] "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." ] ]&#124;] 05:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Ok, I had forgotten about the "whether involving the same or different material", possibly because it makes no sense. I have probably exceeded 3RR myself a dozen or so times, then, without knowing it, and in the process of doing solid, good-faith editing work. BRD works fine when followed, no matter how many times a day you follow it. But I'll bow out and leave this to others, as the letter of policy appears to be against me. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the edit-warring/reverting behavior, I would add that User:Winklevi's behavior does indicate a sense of ownership, since I'm one of several editors that Winklevi has reverted with little explanation other than "I don't like it" (see ]). The user's behavior has kept me away from working on the John Nash article. With my economics and business background, I think after some minor organizational problems are resolved I could add something of use. But if I have to worry about someone reverting any effort I make simply because they don't like it but claim "per BRD" (BRD is not a bludgeon to enable ownership behavior), it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and makes me disinclined to engage in fruitless discussion--especially when previous engagement has led to my reasonable opinion and rationale for one side of a minor content issue being described as "ridiculous" and "silliness" by said user. ] (]) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

:Feel free to provide diff's where I've ever reverted or edited anything using the edit summary or reasoning,"I don't like it". Further, you chose to not discuss when BRD was cited, rather, your response was personal attacks and insults. That's solely on you. -- <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> 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:* I chose not to discuss because my previous discussion with you was fruitless. Discussing anything with you would be a ''ridiculous'' waste of my time and patience and would not be productive or constructive. If there was an opportunity for a constructive dialogue that would improve the article, I'd gladly engage. But I fear that even if I did waste time discussing with you, maybe even meeting an agreement after wasting two chapters worth of words to change a phrase, you'd still revert any effort I made under the claim of BRD and we'd be back in another fruitless discussion. BRD is only a tool for you; a justification and self-justification for your ownership behavior, and you wield it as a club to drive other editors away from engaging with an article that you defend/own. I am not under any obligation to volunteer any more of my time on Misplaced Pages just so you can try to obtain validation or legitimacy for your ownership behavior under the façade of "discussion". Sorry, but I don't have the inclination to indulge you or combat your obsessive obstruction and your ownership mentality. I consider your ownership behavior the problem, and the reverting just a symptom of it. Therefore, I withdraw from a wasteful fight. Calling you out for ownership behavior is not a personal attack--even if posited cynically because of the frustration of dealing with you. The fact that another user brought you here with edits where you '''''alone''''' are reverting other users' contributions is indicative that there is a problem with ''your'' behavior. ] (]) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:::It seems you are not only uninterested in discussing per BRD but you are also unable to provide diffs to support your claims and accusations? -- <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> 20:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:::: Yes, because there is nothing to be gained or accomplished by discussing anything with you. Some people you cannot reason with. Can't reason with someone who feels they have the power to exercise wholesale reversions of several users' constructive efforts to improve the article with no valid reason except "per MOS" (with little or no explanation) or "per BRD" (as an empty self-justification). Can't reason with someone when it takes 5,000 words to get 4 words added to an article because you reverted them several times (ref: taxi) and you refuse to acknowledge or respect that other people have differing opinions (you called mine "ridiculous" and "silliness"). Your ownership behavior and your comments in our previous discussion indicate to me you simply don't like it when someone disagrees with how you see things. The pattern is clear...several users edited the article, added, moved things around, etc., worked with the edits and efforts of those working on the article before or at the same time. You, and you alone, reverted them wholesale with vague "per MOS" or "per BRD" rationales, but the subtext is overtly one of "i don't like it". There are several users work you reverted. several. that's not one user having a problem with you or disagreeing or refusing to discuss...it is several users having a problem with you. How many of them did you chase away from the article with your ownership behavior. ] (]) 21:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

{{od}}I believe it is worth noting that in the midst of the TLDR wall-o-text above laden with non-agf commentary, mocking of guidelines/policy, and pall of theersonal attacks, JTV still has not provided diffs to support his claims and accusations. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 22:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}} I'm not taking any action; nor am I closing this report. {{U|Winkelvi}} clearly breached ]. That said, when there is a lot of activity on a breaking event, it is common for editors to breach 3RR technically without violating the spirit of the policy. In Winkelvi's case, my belief is he violated both the letter and the spirit. However, my ''recommendation'' would be a warning, principally because he wasn't warned of the problem until after the 6th revert. Normally, a regular shouldn't need a warning, but, again, this is a breaking event, and experienced editors can lose track. As for the 7th revert, which came after the warning, the edit deserved to be reverted content-wise. Normally, that would not be a justification, and Winkelvi could have left it for someone else, but ... I'll let another administrator decide what they think is most appropriate given all the circumstances.--] (]) 23:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
::{{U|Bbb23}}, I wish you would be a lot more AGF when it comes to me. When have you '''ever''' seen me intentionally violate a policy? (which is what I believe you mean when you say that I broke the "spirit" of 3RR). Losing track doesn't even apply because when I'm editing for content and quality's sake, not trying to undo anyone's edits with the intent of reverting '''them''', just putting the article and its content in appropriate order -- it's only about making sure the article is the best it can be at the moment. Noting how many edits by other editors I never did anything with should tell you the obvious: my editing is in favor of the article and the encyclopedia, not me and not any untoward agenda. All that in mind, I just don't see how any of my edits at the article could be considered disruptive (which is what truly breaking 3RR is "in spirit"). I have asked for editors to be aware of BRD when appropriate - some have, some haven't. Those that haven't -- how is that on me "in spirit"? I have started discussions. Some have participated, some haven't. Again, when I make the attempt, am I truly being disruptive? I don't see how any of those edits can be considered such. Even when called names and disparaged by a particular editor who has commented here, I kept my cool and reminded them of BRD and making constructive comments. They declined (and are still doing so, if you look at the article talk page).

::All that in mind, I will keep away from editing the article for the next 24 hours as an act of good faith. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 00:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
:::* "I'm only doing it because it's good for the encyclopedia"....they all say that, or convince themselves that. I dont believe youre that blind to some of ypur behavior. Several editors took issue with it now. Do you see it if you rephrased as "I'm only owning the article because I think it's best" or "I'm driving away other contributors by my obstructionist behavior because I think it's best."?? Because thats the result of the behavior you displayed. Take a week off the article, let other editors take their swipes. The article will still be there, hopefully improved, and without ownership drama. ] (]) 00:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Herut}}, {{pagelinks|Iraq War}}<br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Orcohen45}}

Diffs of the user's reverts:
# (Herut) - similar to a series of reverted edits by IPs and now-blocked accounts about a week ago
# (Herut)
# (Herut)
# (Herut)
# (Iraq War)
# (Iraq War)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (by Malik Shabazz on 26 May); (by Roland R on 27 May)

<!-- 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: See ] and ]

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
This editor is edit warring across multiple articles, and is possibly a sockpuppet of (blocked) {{user|Morbenmoshe}} and (previously blocked) {{user|80.246.133.64}}, given that the account has made very similar edits to them with similarly poor English. ] ]] 13:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:I have already reported this editor ], and agree with Numberr57's assessment. Several socks of Morbenmoshe have already been blocked, including {{user|85.65.121.88}}, {{user|176.12.140.114}}, and the range 80.246.133.0/24. ] and ] were semi-protected, which Orcohen is evading by making test edits until auto-confirmed. Editor is already in breach of 1RR on some articles, as well as averting a well-deserved block for and incompetence. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 13:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:'''''' by ]. ] (]) 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi, warning) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|Pamela Geller}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|2602:306:3644:13A0:607C:6C50:5E90:A6F6}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=662585040|diff=664294653|label=Consecutive edits made from 16:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC) to 16:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|664294423|16:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "remove redundant material -- "anti-Islam" mentioned six times in 1st paragraph"
## {{diff2|664294653|16:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "remove opinionated material from biased sources"
# {{diff2|664295494|16:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664294805 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|664295867|16:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664295654 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|664296173|17:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664296011 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|664296320|17:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664296228 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|664296395|17:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664296360 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|664296565|17:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664296437 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|664297023|17:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664296925 by ] (])"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|664296662|17:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>
Note that Hair has not reverted after I alerted them to 3RR. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Article semiprotected by ]; ] is warned. Both parties went over 3RR but Hair may have assumed he was reverting vandalism. ] (]) 17:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
*:Note: I protected the page because of what I saw as unexplained removal of content. I was unaware of an edit war ''per se'', or of this report. The user in question needs to be told to discuss and reach consensus. This does look more like one-sided edit warring against consensus, now that I see it. The editor is trying to make some points, and some of them may (or may not. No judgement on that) be valid, but they clearly need to discuss rather than edit war. Anyhoo, the article is protected for now, and if the user wishes to talk about it, the talk page is open. --]] 17:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks| Reggie Miller }} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Jammer54}}

<!-- 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 />
Editor is adding "Conference Champion" entries to infoboxes against current consensus. Behavior is seen in other article as well, which has also been reverted:

{{la|Charles Barkley}}
*

{{la|Allen Iverson}}
*

Editor has not responded to talk page requests, nor has explained edits in edit summary despite . I am an ] admin, but other editors have been reverting Jammer54's changes as well.—] (]) 17:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:Actually, heavily involved would be more like it. ] ] 17:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

'''Update''': More reversions since Jammer54 was notified of this case:
* at ]
* at ]
Appears user is ] to collaborate with others.—] (]) 18:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
* {{AN3|b|24 hours}}. Not technically 3RR, but clearly edit warring & unwilling to communicate. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 18:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 2 users blocked) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|Mystery Diners}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Realnb}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|664302682|17:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Source is valid and reflects the facts on Mystery Diners."
# {{diff2|664301878|17:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Restored correct edit."
# {{diff2|664301392|17:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Valid edit restored."
# {{diff2|664301034|17:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Source is valid. Show uses reenactments, which are scripted."
# {{diff2|664292418|16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|664291513|16:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Source is reliably and was unjustly removed."
# {{diff2|664282369|15:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "The source is reliable and the evidence is extensive. The show itself acknowledges it uses actors and is staged."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|664302663|17:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning user for edit warring."

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

The user is pushing to include a change to the introduction, which does not have a reliable source. A discussion about the matter with him/her is in progress on the article's talk page. '''<font face="Cambria">]</font>''' <sup>''<font face="Cambria">(] • ])</font>''</sup> 18:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

:: The source I cited is reliable and is backed up by the show itself. ] (]) 18:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

* {{AN3|b|24 hours}} I have blocked this user and also {{user|Drmargi}} for breaking the three-revert rule. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 18:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:::I knew that Drmargi was violating the three-revert rule as well, but at the time of making the report, I was in a rush, so I didn't have time to include his details. Anyway, thank you for blocking him and Realnb. '''<font face="Cambria">]</font>''' <sup>''<font face="Cambria">(] • ])</font>''</sup> 20:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

== ] edit warring. ==

There is currently a disagreement on the above page which is close to degenerating into a full edit war. I feel that the other editor involved, ] is unequivocally violating ], and is violating NPOV, although that is not blatantly obvious at a glance, as the MEDRS is. ] (]) 19:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:First of all, nobody has broken 3RR so this is a non-actionable filing.
:<u>Background</u>: A paid editor had been pushing to not describe SBD as a "fad diet" for a long time with no consensus, and had finally pretty much given up. Enter {{u|Anmccalff}} in Mid-March with , picking up that argument where the paid editor left off, and also got no consensus. Our last exchange was Apr 30 , where I suggested he implement some DR process.
:<u>Today</u> Anmmccalff:
:: up and the "fad diet" language.
::, saying please don't edit war and again pointed to DR
:::BRD would suggest, instead, that you discuss, and justify, your using cites which violate MEDRS, I would have thought.] (]) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
::Anmmcalff
:: I , and promised an edit war warning,
:: which I gave them,
:ball remains in their court to initiate DR for these edits that no one else supports. ] (]) 19:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
::There is no "no one else," merely him at the moment...flagrantly violating a standard he is very quick to uphold in other circumstances.] (]) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
::PS:Jytdog is a bit touchy about any edit of his work, so could someone (else) please correct the mispellings above?] (]) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:::you really need to read ] - i am not freaky at all, in not taking well to other people editing my comments. and clearly i do not agree with your interpretation of MEDRS. (and btw, that i am the last one with patience to continue talking with you, doesn't mean that anybody agrees with you) in any case, this is not a matter for 3RR unless anmccaff continues to edit war instead of using DR. i won't be responding further unless that happens and i need to continue this. ] (]) 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|James Jackson}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|EauZenCashHaveIt}}
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#

<u>Comments:</u> Sorry for not having reported this earlier, but I wasn't aware of how this policy quite works. I had done a cleanup to a dab (]) page according to ], so within full compliance of an established Misplaced Pages policy. The above user then came along, triggered by an edit I had made on a page he has under scrutiny, and which he reverted thrice as well, although I had explained the reason for those changes.
So he reverts the change to the dab page as well, without having anything to do with that page, without questioning or searching consensus, and with an apparent lack of knowledge of applicable policies. He has done so up to about twenty times! I was about to report it, when another user got involved, he immediately got slammed as well. . On the talk page he finally changed his position, but is now reverting again putting his demands to other editors.<br />
More than the change itself, is the attitude which is a continuous issue. His talk page shows that in just two months he has already gotten into similar rows with half a dozen people. It's always the same issue: agressive, heading in feet first, reverting without respecting other people's edits, not searching consensus, and often accompanied by abusive language, finger pointing, poking
, , and so on.<br />
This attitude has to stop. Nobody needs his approval for the edits they make, and by using abusive language he is crossing a red line. Please deal with this appropriately. --] (]) 00:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Boone County Fire Protection District}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Tryntonroberts}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=664352532|diff=664353444|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC) to 01:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|664353380|01:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664352128 by ] (]) The station and apparatus are not current, that is why there is an asterisk to denote these changes, which will be in the next year."
## {{diff2|664353444|01:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664352532 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|664346809|00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664344914 by ] (])"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|664352134|01:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Boone County Fire Protection District */ new section"
# {{diff2|664357056|02:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|664357149|02:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Boone County Fire Protection District */"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

User is clearly new and I respect that. I have tried to initiate a dialogue with the user on multiple occasions with no success. ] (]) 02:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

{{AN3|p}} As nobody else is editing the article, I have locked the page for 2 days so you can sort your differences out on the talk page. I don't think ] really qualifies as "initiating a dialogue" myself. ] ] ] 08:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Arrowsmith School}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Taeyebaar}}

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arrowsmith_School&type=revision&diff=663981768&oldid=663958250 - reverted edits by user
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arrowsmith_School&type=revision&diff=663838318&oldid=663788370 - reverted edits by senior admin
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arrowsmith_School&type=revision&diff=664362217&oldid=664362028 - reverted all my edits, repeatedly

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Taeyebaar indicates on talk page "some articles are endangered", implying sole ownership of the article.

User Taeyebaar has undone repeated attempts by various admins (including senior ones!) in the last 24 hours - and many more attempts in the last few months. They are protecting their own interest in the article without allowing additional edits.

*'Starbucks' is a sockpuppet of the blocked ]. I have just reported him to a CU administrator and the case should be persued as soon as he receives the message.--] (]) 04:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
*'Taeyebaar' has accused every editor of their articles of sockpuppetry, and managed to get numerous legitimate editors banned. Check out their user history! ] (]) 09:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Mastoi}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Sam11012}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|664310170|18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=664226414|diff=664228330|label=Consecutive edits made from 05:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC) to 05:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|664227676|05:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|664228330|05:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "what i am trying to do is to tell the write thing about the mastoi tribe , what ever i am trying to write is completely write and can not be challenged by any one,so kindly do not revert or rmove the cahnges unitl its been proved wrong or discriminative"
# {{diff2|664225872|05:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|664132438|15:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|664129664|15:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|664226470|05:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|664228833|05:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|664229024|05:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* May 2015 */ cut it out"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 12:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|GNU/Linux naming controversy}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ahunt}}
<!-- 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. -->

] has been edit-warring with one or more wikipedia users on the cited article above.

He has ] firstly reverting an important content concerning the opinion supporting "GNU/Linux" term of a well-known person (Jimmy Wales) under a reason that the reference wasn't reliable and that "It is also seven years old". The reference was updated by an ip user to refer to the ] made by the official Jimmy Wales' wikipedia account: to make sure that the info was reliable enough: but ] didn't accept that: and instead tried to justifty his reverts with false positives. The deletion of such reliable content is considered ]. ] has clearly shown his pure POV-pushing against the "GNU/Linux" term by the 5 edits (from http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=GNU/Linux_naming_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=664259885 to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=GNU/Linux_naming_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=664267671) he did for adding non-reliable content (like "In May 2015 Stallman began calling Linux-based operating systems "the GNU operating system"" and "In May 2015 Softpedia reported that Stallman had abandoned his campaign to have people call Linux-based operating systems "GNU/Linux"") , which the cited source didn't say and which already differs with the truth that ] was using the "the GNU operating system" term from 1983, without keeping the content related to the Jimmy Wales' opinion.

Such POV-pushing against "GNU/Linux" can be seen in several contributions the ] has done like , , , and .

The ] hasn't stopped at that, but has continued multiple reverts which can be seen in the article edit history, to violate the ] policy describing the reverted edits to be ] , while those edits was done to restore the ] already vandalized by ], to update the ref, and to remove the added non-reliable content against ]: and already explained by the ip user in the ].

The ] has been warned about such behaviour in his ] and the ], but he didn't stop and continued reverting and tried to accuse the ip user of ] while the ip user has already explained all in the ].

By doing such edits, the ] is involved in a violation of ], ], ] and ]: that's unacceptable POV-pushing against other contributions and thus a lack of constructive edits reflecting his ability of collaborating correctly with other editors. ] (]) 12:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

* '''Semi-protected''' for a month. The 41.x.x.x and 197.x.x.x editors are obviously the same person, have not justified their edits, and refer to the correct reversal of their edits as "vandalism". Not acceptable. ] 13:04, 28 May 2015 (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: