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.
<!-- 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: Warned) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
;Page: {{pagelinks|Gojoseon}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Cydevil38}}
;Previous version reverted to:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|675533415|05:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Been talked over already, read the talk page before requesting others to do your job"
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff|oldid=675374000|diff=675478082|label=Consecutive edits made from 20:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC) to 20:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|675476630|20:48, 10August2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675374000 by ] (]) per Xia Dynasty"
# {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
## {{diff2|675478082|20:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|675348825|01:24, 10August2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675314652 by ] (]) widely used legendary founding date"
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|675260249|11:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)}} ""
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|675535551|05:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
User has been recently blocked for edit warring on Korea templates and is now edit-warring Gojoseon. After my most recent revert, which had the edit summary "Reverted to revision 675374000 by Zanhe (talk): Reverts by at least two separate editors = take it to talk already", his edit summary says "Been talked over already, read the talk page before requesting others to do your job". I don't know what this means but clearly that he is not interested in the talk page. Reverts by several editors. ] ] 05:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
:I second {{u|Ogress}}. {{u|Cydevil38}} is a career edit warrior. Although he's a long-time user, he has only made a few hundred mainspace edits, most of which involve edit warring and nationalistic POV-pushing (adding the purely mythical 2333 BC date to Korean history articles, for example). At least five or six different users have complained about him on ] and here. He's already been blocked twice before (including his former account {{u|Cydevil}}), but has not changed his ways. -] (]) 16:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
As I have said in the short comments, 1. the legendary founding year these two users are trying to remove are widely used in Korea, the day of which is a national holiday, 2. legendary founding dates are used in other articles as well such as ], and 3. this founding year has been already discussed over at the talk page. Ogress misinforms the situation by saying "several", whereas it's only two editors, Ogress and Zanhe, attempting to remove the legendary founding date. There are many others who disagree with their view. These are reverts made by Zanhe and Ogress over the last week other people's edits, which is about time when I noticed them making edits to the article in a disagreeable way:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
Zanhe -
Ogress -
Ogress -
Clearly, "several" as said Ogress is rather the people that disagree with them.
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
The Korean counterpart of the article also uses the legendary founding in the same fashion date. In the infobox, it is clearly indicated that the founding date is legendary. Founding date and its sources is also discussed extensively in the body of the article. ] (]) 01:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
:All of this is irrelevant to the fact that you have '''deliberately broken 3RR''' and '''refuse to discuss'''. It doesn't matter if you are right - you are breaking 3RR. To be clear, I said in my edit summary, "Reverted to revision 675374000 by Zanhe (talk): Reverts by at least two separate editors = take it to talk already".
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:You won't go to the talk page, you even SAY you won't go to the talk page because "Been talked over already". You got banned six months ago for 72h https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Log?action=view&page=Cydevil38&type=block for a ''three-month edit war'' on Korean topics. You know better and you did it anyway. In fact, you just edited the area of discussion . ] ] 04:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
*'''Comment''' - Unless I'm misreading the diffs, I'm not seeing a 3RR violation. You've also been edit-warring on the article, and have made no attempt to discuss it on the talk page either. There's a section above, that you left blank, called "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" and the editing note, which was removed from this report, says "''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''" - You've both been edit-warring, and neither of you have tried to discuss it on the talk page instead of hitting "undo", so why should Cydevil38 be blocked and not you? ] (]) 04:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
:*'''Reply to Aoidh''' {{yo|Aoidh}} There are definitely 4 diffs in total of nonconsecutive edits where he is restoring the date 2333 BCE; am ''I'' reading the edits wrong?
::I reverted what was patently nonsense - the state was formed 2000 years ago? - and said, "take it to talk". When his response was "Been talked over already, read the talk page before requesting others to do your job", no, I did not go to talk because he was clearly stating he was ''not interested'' in talk.
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
::I can't change the past and add a "come discuss this" to the talk page. I would note I ''stopped editing this section'' (and the page entirely as it happens) at two reverts because that's when you realise you are wading into an edit war.
<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 />
:: In contrast, Cydevil38 has continued to edit the page; he literally just edited the section in question, removing an IP's cites. He also doesn't seem to care about 3RR or edit warring. Look at his response above. You can block me if you think it is appropriate, but I did not know what else to do when Cydevil38 '''literally''' said he would not discuss the topic other than to bring him here to ANI, where '''suddenly''' he decides it is time to discuss the topic: "look, here is my argument". Why did we have to get to the current point at ANI in order for him to decide it was time to have a discussion about consensus? ] ] 04:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::*more comment* I see above also that there are diffs from the seventh where I reverted his edits twice. I have to admit I missed that - I didn't remember that. I do a ''lot'' of edits. My rule is that if there are two reverts, if that is reverted I go to talk and engage. There was no revert, so I dropped it and went to do three solid further days worth of editing, including dealing with a lot of contentious pages. Check my edit history: {{user|Ogress}}. I don't know how many edits I've made since the 7th, but it's certainly not on ''my'' first page of edits, which is set to newest 500.
: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) ==
:::I admit I did not see this nor remember it when the spat started up again. I can see that would make AGF seem harder for an outside editor. All I can say is what I already did: I literally didn't remember that. And I apologise to the editors around me for that.
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
:::I think perhaps this is even further bad-faith evidence for Cydevil38, whose edits are restricted only to a handful of Korean pages. He's only edited 2 pages in all of August: the one in question and the Korean template he got a three-day ban for. He waited until the situation calmed down in terms of reversions and then re-added material. That's ''clearly'' gaming the system. ] ] 05:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
The edit I've made after this report was removing citation that has nothing to do with Gojoseon's founding date. They are a list of books that Zanhe used in his argument that Dangun should be left out of the article. Also, I only make edits to pages where I can make meaning contributions, which are mostly Korean articles. It's rather annoying that both Zanhe and Ogress make mockery of me because I'm no as active. This editor also insults Koreans in general by saying the legendary founding year is used as the basis of a calendar(like birth of Jesus Christ) and the date of the founding is a national holiday. When I told Ogress to read the talk page, I didn't mean not to engage in talks, but that Ogress read the previous discussion and consensus that has already taken place. ] (]) 12:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
:In my opinion, ] has engaged in long-term edit warring about the history of Korea. Reading is instructive. I left a note for the previous blocking administrator, ]. to see if he has any suggestions. Meanwhile, I'm proposing to Cydevil38 that he avoid a block by agreeing to make no further edits on the history of Korea unless he gets a consensus first. ] (]) 15:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
::That discussion is ''eight years old'', {{u|Cydevil38}}, and is a tripartite list of ancient traditional histories from Korea and China (primary sources). That's not RS. We're going to have to discuss this issue on the talk page.
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::And no, I am not ''mocking'' you: I'm saying it's sort of obvious you gamed the system. There can be some suspicion about ], but I am not making that argument. Well, except I am bringing it up here in reply to you, so except to clarify my response. ] ] 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:::As requested by {{user|EdJohnston}}, I would like to clarify: above, {{user|Cydevil38}} stated, "When I told Ogress to read the talk page, I didn't mean not to engage in talks, but that Ogress read the previous discussion and consensus that has already taken place." That "previous discussion and consensus" is, as you can see from the link, not a consensus, barely a discussion, and '''definitely''' not appropriate RS. It doesn't even agree with his claim that there is a unified date of 2333 - one might exist elsewhere, but not in that section, where three traditional dates based on the life of the mythological Chinese culture hero ] (noted below as '''堯''') are proposed in various ancient chronicles and songs from Chinese and Korean historiography.
# {{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:'''
:::I am pasting the entire section below:
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
{{hat|1=Material from Talk:Gojoseon that was pasted here by ] to document the sequence of events. Click to view. ] (]) 22:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC) }}
:::<blockquote>''<nowiki>==</nowiki>Can someone give the source of the foundation years of Gojoseon?<nowiki>==</nowiki>
* BC 2622 by whom ?<br />
* BC 2786 by whom ?<br />
* BC 2800 by whom ?<br />
* BC 2337 by whom ?<br />
There are so many theories about the foundation years.
Can anyone give the sources of them ?
??? I thought Misplaced Pages said that Japan was under Gojoseon's rule... What about that information?? I want to know... Did Gojoseon occupy Japan or no??? PLz someone answer me..
I have a project due on Japan.
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:No, it didn't. Check any book you want on Japanese history. Or Korean history for that matter. -- ] 02:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
: There are three opinions
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
: '''1. BC2357'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}
:: ](魏書), ](제왕운기), Dangunsegi(단군세기), ] as the first year of 堯.
: '''2. BC2333'''
:: (Donguk tonggam)동국통감, Haedong ijeok(해동이적), Dongguk Yeokdae Chongmok(동국역대총목) as the 25th year of 堯
: '''3. BC2308 '''
:: Gogi(古記) cited by Samguk Yusa as the 50th year of 堯
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::Chinese records of 四庫全書 says B.C. 2333. Korean just use this records of 四庫全書 --] 09:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::So, the year B.C.2333 was not on Samguk Yusa. Then, the text on the article is wrong. ] 09:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:: Where in 四庫全書 does it say 2333 BC? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->''</blockquote>
#
:::You'll note that not only isn't there consensus of ''any'' kind, there's not even a response to the query, "Where in ] does it say 2333 BC?" by {{user|Angry bee}} (I added the appropriate wikilink to the source being queried since it's in Chinese.)
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:::These sources listed are the '']'' (dated to 554), '']'' (a poem dated to 1287), '']'' ("a modern forgery dated to 1979"), '']'' (closed in 1865), ''] ''(c. 1488), ''Haedong Ijeok'' (no English article, dated to 1666), a book unattested on Ko or En wikipedia (''東國歷代總目'', dated to about 1705) and the '']'' (believed to be compiled in the 1280s). All adhere to traditional historiography and are considered primary sources.
{{hab}}
::: I hope that helps? I'm not sure what you were looking for.] ] 22:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
* The origin of the 2333 BC date is explained in detail in , a book written by Professor Hyung Il Pai and published by Harvard Asia Center. It was likely arrived by counting back 1048 years (the divine ruler ]'s age when he abdicated) from 1286 BC, ]'s estimated year of arrival in Korea after the collapse of the China's ]. And in a related discussion last year, I showed Cydevil tons of academic sources confirming the mythical nature of Dangun/Tangun and hence the date associated with him (see ]). -] (]) 08:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
:*'''Result:''' ] is '''warned'''. The next time he makes a revert about the history of Korea that doesn't have clear consensus on the talk page, he is risking a long block from Misplaced Pages. Since mid-2014 you have reverted 24 times at ]. The fact that others are constantly undoing your changes should be a clue that these edits don't have consensus. Use the talk page to persuade people. The steps of ] are open to you. Long-term edit warring is one of the problems this board is expected to address, and if nothing else works, a long block may be required. ] (]) 02:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*Cydevil38 '''Please ban me''' I cannot bide by your terms, and I'd like to be banned for six months or more if you please, under the same given reason, my 24 reverts at ]. I'm sick of half-measures and users like Zanhe threatening me with AN moves like this. '''So please ban me for whatever amount of time you deem fit for making 24 reverts at ].''' ] (]) 07:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
:*So {{u|Cydevil38}} is in ], then? I doubt that very much. ] ] 07:36, 14 August 2015 (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 .
::* {{re|Ogress}} 121.161.79.71 to South Korea, not Zambia. And Cydevil used IPs from the 121.161.79.x network in earlier edit wars (he later said he forgot to log in), see . -] (]) 08:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::*So adding a NPOV tag on a disputed article is edit warring? Is that what you think? ] (]) 09:30, 14 August 2015 (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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
: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)
;Page: {{pagelinks|Altaír Jarabo}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Nyanchoka}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
;Previous version reverted to:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|675652399|21:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675649237 by ] (])"
# {{diff|oldid=675549107|diff=675623064|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC) to 18:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|675617749|17:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675549107 by ] (]) Unsourced edits hence possible vandalism."
## {{diff2|675621205|17:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Filmography */Added reliable sources to support edit content."
## {{diff2|675623064|18:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Premios TVyNovelas */"
# {{diff2|675543174|07:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675092994 by ] (])"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|675549637|08:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Revert without reasons */ new section"
# {{diff2|675552914|08:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Revert without reasons */"
# {{diff2|675649903|21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Revert without reasons */"
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
'''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:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>
# {{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:'''
The user began reverting my edit without any explanation, and then began editing the article to your liking without consultation or without reaching an agreement, to let him messages, never gave me a concrete answer. I think this was already enough with this user, who is not interested in Misplaced Pages teamwork. And he has only wanted to waging a war of editions. Although I disagree with his edit, does not seem to matter. And in my edit I did was update the Filmography of the actress. Because missing projects in which she participated, as "Ugly Btty" and "Lola, érase una vez". <font face="Myriad Web">''']''' <span style="color:dark blue">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></font> 21:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
:{{AN3|nv}} – Only three reverts, while four are needed to break the 3RR rule. Neither of you has posted anything on ]. It helps if you can explain the motivation for your changes on the talk page. The two of you seem to disagree about some fine points of detail which are not easy for an outside to understand. I admit that is not easy to comprehend. It is possible that Nyanchoka's limited ability in English is getting in the way of a good explanation. ] (]) 22:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of Tekken characters}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|TheKerberos01}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#
#
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (with his )
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , though Kerberos's response to being accused of edit-warring is posted .
#
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
The user has repeatedly entered unsourced/poorly sourced information regarding Tekken series characters that even his text admits may not be real. The passage on Jollibee is based on speculation from misinterpreting the meaning of a Tweet from Katsuhiro Harada, which users have been repeatedly removing since ]; and the passage on Luke has no source whatsoever aside from a supposed image Kerberos claims to have, which even he admits might just be fan art.
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
I've , pointing out why it violates Misplaced Pages policy, but he continues to re-add the content, insisting he's in the right. the ] page, reverting multiple users who attempt to place the character ] in the "returning characters" section, despite being a "new model", as is consistent with the other Tekken game pages.
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
The user's writing style suggests to me that English might not be his first language, and it's possible he might not have understood or is misinterpreting why his changes have been reverted up to this point. If so, I'd appreciate it if another user or admin could better explain to him why rumors and speculation don't belong on Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 22:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b}} – 24 hours. The edit summary of says "''Jollibee and Luke will remain there until an acknowledgment is that the two are not in Tekken 7 case.''" This looks like a promise to edit war. In the absence of any good source, he intends to keep restoring 'Jollibee and Luke' until he is sure that the characters are not in the series. ] (]) 23:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I edited ] and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following ]. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
== David Souza is unfairly editing sentences and phrases from other contributors like a newspaper editor! (result: declined) ==
* 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. ] (]) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
I suggest that you deal with David Souza's continual interferences on your various pages that he edits because he is undermining the freedom that Misplaced Pages offers and not only that but the whole function of Misplaced Pages as a dependable source of information. It is laughable how David Souza can get away with making editing changes as if he were a newspaper editor with a particular political slant. David Souza, it can be seen on Patrick Matthew page in particular, makes alterations to the wording of sentences of other contributors in a reckless manner so as to alter the sense or relevance of the material contributed. Harmless! Think again, Misplaced Pages. Your Ward Cunningham has already said it is not his concern. It should be. there should be some code introduced that forbids any tinkering of wording of contributions made by others done by your Administrator/Editors. fair enough if your Administrators/Editors have found some information that is completely false then remove it all but not tinker with the expression of the piece.
:]
Furthermore, it should not be the preserve of Administrator/Editors to issue intimidations on Talk where they have introduced an editing war on a contributor such as I who provided factual information which cannot be disproved as it is a published book. David Souza is a Darwinist and therefore does not want any such entry on Correspondences of Darwin that will upset other Darwinists or maybe draw their attention to this calculated error on the part of Darwin to discredit Patrick Matthew's origination of 'the natural process of selection' in his book in 1831. It stands to reason that this date is 28 years earlier than Darwin's publication in 1859! It should be highlighted on Correspondences of Charles Darwin page so that there is balance.
:"""
:] 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)
Otherwise, Dear Misplaced Pages Administrators/Editors you will find that Misplaced Pages will be a laughing stock.
::"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) ==
Clear it up, Misplaced Pages, please!
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
A contributor
PS I know you know who I am that's why I've done it this way!! <br /> <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|d}} — {{Ping|86.13.98.109}} — I'm assuming this is over . Your change literally breaks the text. It's not an issue of facts or opinion or accuracy; your change is literally invalid in the same way leaving out letters in a sentence would be invalid, because the text wouldn't point to the right page (]) and would instead point to a non-existent page (], what we call a "]"). We have a policy of ] here, and I suggest you start following it. Taking the ] should also help with understanding some of the basics of editing and wiki formatting, while checking out out our ] and ] might help with understanding why you may be reverted in the future and how you can avoid it happening. <small>(pinging {{Ping|Dave souza}} in case he's interested)</small>. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 02:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks for the ping, Slakr, you've covered the issues well. The contributions of both Matthew and ] are recognised appropriately in the various articles, as covered by reliable sources. . . ], ] 06:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Zand dynasty}} <br />
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ali mjr}}
# {{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 a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#
:'''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)
<!-- 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:
:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
<!-- 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 -->
: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)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
: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) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Ali mjr's disruption has been ongoing since <s>8 August</s> 4 June. This disruption has been the addition/changes including the addition of their own interpretation(ie. unsourced information). Of the 78 edits made by Ali mjr, '''none''' have had an edit summary. Back in 4 June 2015, Ali mjr attempted the same massive changes only to be reverted by LouisAragon. Therefore, this disruption can be dated as far back as 4 June. Judging from the lack of edit summary, no attempt at discussion on the Zand talk page, that Ali mjr is not interested in dialogue but simply changing the article to fit his views. The removal of my warning on his talk page, would indicate said user understands the warning and chooses not to engage in discussion. --] (]) 04:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours. Long term edit warring. The user has never left a talk posting or an edit summary, and is constantly adding unsourced material. He has created a new article at ], that (naturally) has no sources. His only use of talk is to remove messages left for him. If this continues, the possibility of an indef block should be considered. ] (]) 23:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sardarji joke}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Js82}}
'''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. -->
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# (7/22/2015)
# (7/22/2015)
# (7/22/2015)
# (7/22/2015)
# (7/22/2015)
# (7/23/2015)
# (8/6/2015)
# (8/6/2015)
# (8/8/2015)
# (8/8/2015)
# (8/8/2015)
After their last revert, I (and an administrator) both suggested that they self-revert until consensus had been reached. I waited a few days in an attempt to let them cool off and make the self-revert. Today, they still had not done so, so I again reverted to the pre-dispute version which I believe is the correct procedure while waiting consensus. That led to:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
# (8/12/2015)
# (8/12/2015)
Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
While I understand it can be frustrating that consensus can take time, that does not excuse edit-warring.
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<u>Comments</u> <br />
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Please note that I had undertaken a painstaking journey on the article talk page, lasting over weeks to discuss my concerns and proposed edits (I wished the article to have an expanded introduction). This discussion involved several editors and admins. The current editor in question, Onel5969, was not party to all this discussion.
# {{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:'''
Subsequent to all this, I have made some edits to the article. So far (for the past several days), no one from the involved group has objected to my edits (one editor had comments, which I respectfully responded to). Onel5969, however, has been having issues on the "very need" to have an expanded introduction (which one of the admins involved in the discussion had openly and clearly agreed to; others had not voiced any objection, in effect providing their tacit approval as well.) ''All Mr. One has been doing now is engaging in a edit war, having himself agreed openly on the talk page that he did not bother reading any of the prior lengthy debate.'' (So he had no idea whatsoever regarding what had been discussed and agreed to before he just decided to jump in.) Further, once his actions are questioned, he does not respond further and resorts to edit warring. Since I'm new here, I do not have much idea and time yet to initiate investigations. If only I had them, it would rather be Mr. One whose actions would be under investigation. Nonetheless, through this forum, I would like to urge you to initiate investigations into the autocratic conduct of Mr. Onel5969. His actions clearly smack of personal ego clashes, and are clearly aimed at subduing the genuine voice of new-ish editors by filing unreasonable and unsubstantiated reports against them, thereby wasting the precious time of all concerned.
] (]) 20:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{AN3|p}} Looks like you have both been edit warring. ], ], ] 21:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
-So what exactly does page protection imply ?
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
-Not sure why I'm being accused of edit-warring, given all the background that I have provided above.
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
-I would also reiterate the need to investigate the conduct of Mr. Onel5969.
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)
Thank you.
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That is because {{u|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Shecose}}, {{tqq|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*I realize the policy states, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts'', right? '''This is three, not more than three.''' It shows the desperation. ] (]) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{u|Shecose}}, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ] (]) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
* Not sure how you equate attempting to maintain the pre-dispute status of the article while consensus is being reached as edit warring. Js82 is the only editor, out of several, involved on the talk page who had an issue with the lead. When he proposed making the change, which he knew might be contentious, he made the change without waiting for consensus. I'm simply attempting to have the article remain in a status quo until consensus is built. I guess that's the incorrect way to go about building consensus. I let this notice board know of the issue on the August 8, and there was no discussion. An admin, {{ul|Swarm}}, added a ] to Js82's, wherein they suggested (as I had earlier) that Js82 self-revert until consensus was reached. As I explained above, I waited several days in an effort to allow Js82 to calm down and perhaps agree to wait for consensus, but that was to no avail. How is one to respond to an editor who refuses to work to gain consensus, and who after bringing the issue to the attention of the admins, is initially ignored? Not being snarky, I'd really like to know so I can do it properly if there is a next time, and avoid being accused of edit-warring. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
Lol..I would urge whoever is evaluating this to please visit the talk page of the article being discussed, to understand yourself how flimsy and frivolous the arguments being made by the above editor are. As I said, there were painstaking lengthy debates initiated by me. Subsequent to these debates only, I edited the article's introduction. No one, absolutely no one from the involved group of debaters has so far expressed any concern. So all the perception of "dispute" being cooked up by the above editor is utterly absurd. All he has been doing is engaging in edit-warring, apparently to settle some personal scores since his conduct has been exposed as being completely unworthy of a Misplaced Pages editor ("No effort put in to understand the context and the prior debates, just barge in and wage edit-wars, and then make frivolous complaints against new-ish editors to scare them away.") This must be investigated, as it leads to a ridiculous waste of everyone's precious time.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
] (]) 01:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
# "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
# "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"
:I protected the page because of a report at ] and it was only after that I saw this report. ], ], ] 19:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Closing this report) ==
#: "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
# "Lady Saso: Reply"
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Gemma Chan}}
# "Lady Saso: New Section"
;User being reported: {{userlinks|68.231.26.111}}
# "Lady Saso: Reply"
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
;Previous version reverted to:
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|675839969|01:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675837541 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|675837392|00:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675833514 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|675826106|22:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)}} ""
In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
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 ].
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
;<u>Comments:</u>
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer informed) ==
Multiple warnings about vandalism AND edit warring have been given. User is not willing to work with other editors. ] (]) 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
::"multiple notices of vandalism" is your statement Garchy?! - that alone is a violation of wiki policy - you cannot prove anywhere I have been a vandal - all my changes have been too ASSIST wiki - you full well know that calling me a vandal is violation of wiki rules - should I know open a admin review for you?!--] (]) 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
:::After you were reverted a second time, why didn't you take your concerns to the talk page to hash it out? If you would have provided a reliable source for the information you were attempting to add, there wouldn't be an issue. It seems you've been notified on your talk page multiple times for disruptive editing. Please remain civil and not threaten to "open an admin for review", we all know that is not necessary. ] (]) 02:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
*OK, I'm closing this--it's already been talked about on]. If the IP continues they'll be blocked. ] (]) 03:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
{{collapsetop|Duplicate of the below}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|155.136.80.172}}
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Reverted by three so far. I wasn't sure he saw the warning before the fourth revert (he only had three minutes) and since it was reverted quickly and he was re-warned, I waited until the fifth revert. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
{{collapsebottom}}
::Eh, this is the same as the below. Suggest close one and deal with the other? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
;Page: {{pagelinks|List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe}}
:{{u|Theonewithreason}}, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
;User being reported: {{userlinks|155.136.80.172}}
:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
# {{diff2|675965444|20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675962304 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|675961978|20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675961867 by ] (])This very cleary does belong here, idiot, you are obviouly not Scottish"
# {{diff2|675960941|20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675958581 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|675942115|18:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675905494 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|675947694|18:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675946590 by ] (]) Leave this along, this very much belongs"
# {{diff2| 675960941| 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675958581 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|675960941|20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675961867 by ] (]) This very cleary does belong here, idiot, you are obviouly not Scottish"
# {{diff2|675965444|20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675962304 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|675978143|22:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675977957 by ] (]) Scotland is a Soverign entity, if not in this part of page needs to be in a nother!"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sillypickle123}}
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|675961661|20:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe: new section"
# {{diff2|675962349|20:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|675988263|00:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Edit warring at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe"
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Attempt
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Response
# {{diff2|1268583865|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
;<u>Comments:</u>
# {{diff2|1268451301|21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268450870|21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268449472|21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268448980|21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Per talk page comments, user is only interested in pushing a nationalist POV ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 21:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268447335|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
# {{diff2|1268463321|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:: '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
# {{diff|oldid=1268447335|diff=1268451519|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:: and no sign of stopping. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This guy now is at '''twelve''' reverts, is ''no one'' able to block him? ] ] 05:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Prokaryotes}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
;Previous version reverted to:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268697942|02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
# {{diff2|1268688649|01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
# {{diff2|1268687321|01:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=1268684554|diff=1268686155|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268685840|01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
## {{diff2|1268686155|01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1268688594|01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "]Created page with '== January 2025 == ] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> You didn't read the ] carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
# {{diff2|1268690605|01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1268694009|02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1268695553|02:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
The user was not following the ] correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Please take a look at this user's frenetic rampage of today, Aug 13. After
rebuffing sensible argument, and manipulating MY talk statements with HIS drivel, he has launched a campaign of block deletions and quasi-random, thoughtless additions of refimprove requests by the truckload. I believe this is "vandalism-within-the rules" and might be up to you to collectively fix. The pages depredated by him look like construction sites. I am a professional theorist and he appears hardly educated on the subjects, with some undisclosed ax to grind. ] (]) 22:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
: I tried to reason with Cuzkatzimhut, however he seems to be not able to except any kind of critic. Almost all his edits lack proper referencing and grammar. Additonally his edits are most of the time to technical. Also the editor might want to explain the edits from me, he thinks are at issue. ] (]) 23:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
:: Cuzkatzimhut if you are a professional theorist(?) on the related subjects you might want to disclose this on your user page. Please read ]. ] (]) 23:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
:YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! ] (]) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Cheap dig: I ''get paid'' to teach the stuff: I can teach it more effectively in WP. You may try subtler innuendo when you proffer WP stuff to read, in sardonic flourishes. What makes you suspect I have not read it in 9 years of editing? Now, about that bizarrely inapposite Tegmark et al. reference...] (]) 00:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
:THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. ] (]) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@]. The issue is your massive removal of valid content. You have misunderstood somehow, and believe that every sentence ''not'' having a citation with page number can be deleted at will. It cannot. It can be ''contested'', starting on the talk page. This is very different. Most of the material you have removed is so general that ''general references suffice''. For example, in an article <u>not</u> about ''elementary quantum mechanics'' you do not require a citation with page number for the statement that a scalar is a boson. It is perfectly enough that the reference section has five or more solid references that ''all'' will telly you that scalars are bosons. The same thing goes for the mass-tagging of articles Cuzkatzimhut have edited in the past. It is also not okay to add ''incorrect statements'' with the excuse that you provided a "citation". If you find that inline citations are lacking, by any means, add some. Your current activity is bordering on vandalism.
You have also been threatening me (and also Cuzkatzimhut, in his case you appealed to "incompetence") with admin action when I told you on a talk page (as politely as possible) that you should not edit other peoples comments, and that your recent edits were no good. It does not look like you are interested in a dialogue. ] (]) 00:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''Notice to other editors''': Yohan has a (see also various other issues on his talk page history), he defends the position of editor Cuzkatzimhut concerning my recent edits. Today in response to , i posted in those regards on his talk page and about WP:Forum. He the "''remove crackpot edit''". Since the points he mentioned above and his edits are off topic here, i leave it at that for now. Again i ask both editors to provide any diffs in regards to edit warring. ] (]) 00:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
::On the contrary, ''my points are on topic, your's are '''not'''''. And, yes, everyone editing ''posts by others'' are crack-pots, especially when they threaten with admin-action after being told no-no. ] (]) 01:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
:::'''Comment:''' This in not in the usual form of reports at ]. The submitter ought to revise it so it names one or more articles where 3RR has been violated, or a long-term edit war is occurring. Otherwise this report may be declined with no study of the merits. Please refrain from personal attacks, especially on admin noticeboards. Calling people idiots or crackpots isn't charming and may cause you to be sanctioned. ] (]) 01:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
::::For whatever it is worth, since around 17:00 yesterday, ] has done nothing but damaging articles Cuzkatzimhut has contributed to. These edits are to be found if you click on "History" in prokaryotes user profile: {{pagelinks|Special:Contributions/Prokaryotes}}
::::These are 80-90 edits targeted solely at Cuzkatzimhut. ] (]) 02:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Brandon Haunstrup}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Ndsm}}
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|675815566|18:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|675929885|13:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Pompey is a nickname for Portsmouth, but nicknames aren't used in Misplaced Pages articles."
# {{diff2|675981693|20:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 675932235 by MYS77 (talk)"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
;<u>Comments:</u>
The user only edited a footballer <u>once</u> in his whole contribution to this WP, and all in a sudden says to me that "we should not use nicknames in Misplaced Pages". Then, after showing examples of how team nicknames work here, I was reverted with no further explanation. ]] ] 03:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Vantastic2014}}
Single purpose account created to blank a well-cited section of the above article.
<!-- 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:
May be a sockpuppet of ]. ] (]) 03:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
::Also there's an IP trying to remove the same content: ] (]) 03:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
:::User is engaged in an amateur "censorship" campaign to remove referenced content about the Chinese government's actual censorship campaign, as reported by reliable sources. ] ] 07:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
: Another possible sockpuppet: ]. ] (]) 09:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
# {{diff2|676049046|09:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|676048388|09:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|676047627|09:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)}} ""
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|676048611|09:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! (])"
# {{diff2|676049906|10:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
;<u>Comments:</u>
Also suspected sockpuppet, ] ] (]) 10:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
:This user might not be a malicious user. We must ]. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
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.
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.
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 sourcedcontentious 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.
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)
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"
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 .
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)
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
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.
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)
What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment NotQualified (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@NotQualified: Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. NotQualified (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
I add templates to an article with faults
The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
I notify the user
I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis NotQualified (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I realize the policy states, An editor must not perform more than three reverts, right? This is three, not more than three. It shows the desperation. Shecose (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Shecose, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
04:26 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
04:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
04:43 9 January 2025 (UTC): "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? PhilipPirrip (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "←Created page with '== January 2025 == Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You didn't read the MOS:TVCAST carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user was not following the MOS:TVCAST correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Update this page
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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)
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)
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)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
Blocked indefinitely Jauerback/dude. 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
