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

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

Revision as of 15:09, 5 October 2015 editFrancis Schonken (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users68,468 edits →User:Francis Schonken reported by User:LlywelynII (Result: )← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 04:36, 9 January 2025 edit undoMrOllie (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers237,365 editsm →User:80.200.232.89 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}
	<noinclude>{{pp~~-move-indef~~}}{{/Header}}]		<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~295~~		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Chance997}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Swiss Standard German}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Kwamikagami}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|683354179\|19:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683274989 by ] (]) if we don't know the number of speakers, we should say we don't know. that's a primary reason people come to articles like this."
	# {{diff2\|683377668\|22:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)}} "no, it's not "obvious". If you have an estimate, provide one. otherwise we have no estimate to provide."
	# {{diff2\|683499748\|17:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|683545741\|23:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "tag deleted info rather than fighting violation of BOLD"

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|683535262\|21:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|683534277\|21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Sources for the claim that there are no estimates about number of native speakers? */"

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

			Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "<code><nowiki>a ] containing an ] alien ]</nowiki></code>" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the ]). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, ] and ], citing ] as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. ] '''''<small style="font-size:70%;">(])</small>''''' 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Remark''' The following comments list about wrestling are not my comments. They are references of a previous post. -- ] (]) 11:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Remark''' What an escalation for a really tiny dispute. I suggest taking no punitive action towards anyone and instead recommend everyone take a step back immediately and ponder how tiny an issue the addition or removal of a '?' to indicate unknown number of speakers is. ] (]) 11:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
	*Indeed, what a trivial issue to edit war over. Blocked for 48 hours. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 14:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
	**And pointless, because we don't use "?" to indicate problems with data in articles, we state what the problem is, either inline or in a footnote. That said, a block for editwarring that already stopped is wrong, being entirely punitive not preventative. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

			I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at ] to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Remark''' It hasn't been the first edit war this user has been involved in. ] (]) 13:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	*:I'm starting to see it, I remember having disputes with him on the articles about the letters of the ], and now right after unblocking, I see POV-smelling edits like ("or more accurately"? it's just an alternative analysis, and the article is being made awkward just to push its superiority), and right before being blocked, after my comment asking for no punitive action, he went as far as , just because others would revert his '?'. I am honestly unimpressed. ] (]) 23:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Both~~ ~~blocked~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Euroleague\|2015–16~~ ~~Euroleague\|Template:2015–16~~ ~~Euroleague~~ ~~Regular~~ ~~Season Group D\|FIBA Intercontinental Cup~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2024 United Kingdom general election}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|46.177.119.122}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ToadGuy101}}
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Previous version reverted to: , , ,

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			# {{diff2\|1267771905\|16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# {{diff2\|1267757010\|14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])Stop whining about him"
	#
			# {{diff2\|1267751151\|14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	#
			# {{diff2\|1267747621\|13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	#
	#

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff2\|1267751597\|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			# {{diff2\|1267301347\|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />Please, block this articles for new users or block this user. This user vandalizing a lot of articles and one user and me are trying to stop the vandalism.

			User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Agree with Vasconia. Absolutely inadequate ip user. He simply tries to revert article ] to very old revision without any description of his reasons, and didn't use a talk page. Please block him. ] (]) 16:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
	*I think, it's a user {{userlinks\|Jaco the 3rd}}, compare his edit and the same by ip in question . ] (]) 16:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
	:*I protected ] because several IP addresses were involved, but the remaining articles were just Vasconia versus 46.177.119.122 in situations that weren't clear vandalism or anything else that warrants a blind eye. Blocked both for 24 hours. ] (]) 20:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
	::*I don't think it's a right block for Vasconia. All his edits were correct, but ip 46.77... wrongly tried to change the traditional naming of clubs etc. ] (]) 21:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
	* Hello! user {{userlinks\|Jaco the 3rd}} made his revert to old revision again, without discussing on the talk page. Please block him and revert this edit. It's a clear, that {{userlinks\|46.177.119.122}} was his ip (used for 3RR violation). ] (]) 11:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
	:*I've reverted the edit to the version that was settled upon by this discussion. However, I do believe that Jaco should be blocked for edit warring and possibly have a check user run against him to see if the IP is his.--] (]) 11:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
	::*Thak you, Ditto51! ] (]) 11:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Semi~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Jennifer Tilly~~}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1000mods}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|~~24.210.33.160~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mindxeraser}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			#
			#
			#
			#

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

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

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />		<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
			{{AN3\|b\|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==
	For some unknown reason, this IP insists on blanking that ] has starred in over 40 episodes of ] from the lead. The IP refuses to discuss it and is instead slowly edit warring. Another user tried to it, in case it was the wording that the IP took issue with, but the IP just keeps removing it anyway. ] (]) 05:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fernanda Torres}}
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*'''Result:''' Semiprotected six months. There is a long-term edit war by a single, stable IP but there's also an existing problem of normal IP vandalism by a variety of people. So semi appears justified. It is simpler to do this than try to justify a long-term block of the IP. ] (]) 18:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Afterwriting and Mark Marathon blocked) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Waltzing Matilda}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Afterwriting}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1267808569\|20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
			# {{diff2\|1267807858\|20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267807213\|20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806982\|20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806103\|20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."

	;Diffs of ~~the~~ ~~user's~~ ~~reverts~~:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# {{diff2\|~~683904939~~\|08:08, 3 ~~October~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)}} "~~Removed~~ ~~unnecessary~~ ~~comma~~."		# {{diff2\|1267807698\|20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing (])"
	# {{diff2\|~~683910344~~\|~~09:~~20, 3 ~~October~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)}} "~~Incorrect~~ ~~comma~~ ~~removed~~."		# {{diff2\|1267808131\|20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing (])"
	# {{diff2\|683911858\|09:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683910952 by ] (]) Irrelevant argument. It's not a ] (which is non-Australian English anyway)."
	# {{diff2\|683912554\|09:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)}} ""Cited source" no longer exists. Corrected grammar."
	# {{diff2\|683912824\|09:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683912750 by ] (]) There is NO source for this. Bizarre behaviour is not mine."

	;Diffs of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ / ~~3RR~~ ~~warning~~:		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	# {{diff2\|683902574\|07:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|683902574\|07:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)}}

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|683540507\|08:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* "Australian English style" */"

	;<u>Comments:</u>		<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
			{{AN3\|b\|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==
	General aggressive edit warring on this article. Diffs highlight a particular micro-disagreement over whether the lede sentence should contain a comma. ] also somewhat at fault for repeatedly reverting it back, but the talk page discussion is rather one-sided has a lot of ] from Afterwriting. ] (]) 11:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}
	:I dislike edit warring as much as any other editor. I have, however, attempted to make various straightforward style and phrasing improvements to the article (with only one mistake on my part). ], however, has chosen to mass revert my edits based on a questionable claim of "Australian English" (something I have professional knowledge of). In doing so he restored a number of previous style and phrasing problems and then bizarrely blamed me for adding them to the article. All of this can be checked in the article edit history. Even when I pointed this out to him on the article discussion page he just repeated his false accusation instead of checking his own editing. He has refused to admit to this or to apologise for doing so. He appears to have ownership problems and to delight in accusing others of edit warring when he is doing so himself. The accusations of edit warring by him and ] are highly hypocritical in their one-sidedness. This whole unpleasant matter has been highly frustrating due to what I perceive as the ownership and battleground mentality of Mark Marathon. ] (]) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
	*Afterwriting and Mark Maraathan {{AN3\|b}} for 31 hours.--] (]) 15:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Csknp}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Croatian parliamentary election, 2015}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Thewanderer}}

			'''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\|1267452946\|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			# {{diff2\|1267525585\|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1267644988\|01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267646582\|01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- 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. -->
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267699885\|diff=1267736737\|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio}}
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			: I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}} (by {{u\|BusterD}}) ] (]) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	This editor has broken the 3RR rule, engaged himself in a edit-war just and ignored the talk page. He has for last two days repeatedly edited the article and has disrupted the article. Adding his speculation, and without explanation, ignored the pleads to stop edit warring and has broken the 3RR rule. --] (]) 17:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b}} – 24 hours. ] reverted the article twice more after being notified of this edit-warring complaint. ] (]) 18:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Natural number}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|66.87.64.242}}
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	Previous version reverted to: see comments

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- 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:
	# 18:37
	# 20:15
	# 20:46
	# 20:52
	# 21:23


			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	<!-- 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 -->
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:55

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	<!-- 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: <br/>

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	An IP user has repeatedly edited the article to remove a claim (well sourced, actually) in the first line. I don't think this is vandalism, per se - we can AGF about the intentions. But the issue has been thoroughly discussed in the talk page, most recently last year and . — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
			# (31 December 2024)
	*'''Result:''' Semiprotected one year. Long term warring about the definition of a 'whole number' by a variety of IPs, possibly all operated by the same person. The various IPs don't wait for agreement to be reached on the talk page. If you want 'whole number' to be defined differently, open an ] or use some other method of ]. ] (]) 15:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Both blocked; semi-protected) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Han emperors}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|171.236.111.60}} and {{userlinks\|14.164.134.159}}

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

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

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			: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)
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			::{{AN3\|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	<!-- 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:

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	User with multiple IPs (as named) keeps adding posthumous emperors to the navigational template despite them being only posthumous and not actual emperors, and also they are mostly red links and discouraged on navigational templates. Me and another editor {{user\|Zanhe}} have reverted the additions but the IPs undid us with only "this is Chinese history" as their reason. When asked to clarify their reasoning, they responded that yes, they indeed thought they alone have the say on Chinese history. This is followed by a edit warring warning on their talk page, which is only met with another revert and a personal attack against me (last diff above). This is where my ] runs out. ] (]) 22:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|bb\|72 hours}}. I've also semi-protected the article for two weeks.--] (]) 22:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ], ], ], ] reported by ] (Result: Semi) ==
			# {{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:'''
	'''Page: ''' {{pagelinks\|History of the Jews in Bulgaria}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
	'''Users being reported:'''
	: {{userlinks\|149.62.200.251}},
	: {{userlinks\|149.62.200.79}}
	: {{userlinks\|149.62.200.33}},
	: {{userlinks\|212.5.158.50}},

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

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

			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	<!-- 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. -->
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			#
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

	This is a link to the diff in which I requested others to reach a consensus on the talk page

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

			{{AN3\|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	There may be more than one dispute at issue here, regarding the ethic background of multiple people and the legitimacy of multiple sources. Some illegitimate sources will claim a notable person is Jewish as a matter of pride, while others will make the same claim as part of an attempt at character assassination. When I have translated a cited source web-page from Bulgarian, (shalompr.org) using Google translate, the source had no relation whatsoever to to what it was being used for.

			: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)
	On top of the reverts of content, the reverters have been messing up citations and references, so on the current version of the page, the page generates two cite errors. I have fixed these in the past, but its getting old to repeat the same formatting fixing in the middle of an edit-war or edit-pre-war.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	I would also like to note another user in the midst of all this, ]. He is the only other registered user taking part in this series of events. I have contacted him a number of times on his talk page, but as you can see, while he doesn't seem to be a bad actor, he's not responsive.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	I don't mind if the administrator dealing with this also contacts me on my own talk page, even if for only giving me general advice, or general discussion.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	—''<b>]</b>'' (]) 01:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*'''Result:''' Semiprotected three months. Edit warring by IP-hopper. Some users have been breaking the references. ] (]) 15:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Social Democratic Party of Croatia}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1268160425\|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tzowu}}
			# {{diff2\|1268160707\|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	#
	#
	#
	#

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}

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

	The user shows no intention to stop edit warring. Also before he was engaged in edit wars for a multiple times, also ignoring Misplaced Pages rules. Now he is introducing not sourced material and ignores the talk page. What els should I have done but report him? He shows no will to end this "conflict". He has done the same thing also on this page {{pagelinks\|Croatian People's Party – Liberal Democrats}} --] (]) 12:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:User Tuvixer is a disruptive editor that is involved in yet another edit war (he's been reported many times), in which he provides no reasonable explanations for his continuous reverts. Every attempt of a discussion with him ends in the same way, he does not accept what others say and keeps acting like he owns an article. Yesterday for example he was involved in one on ]: ] (]) 12:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
			#

	#
	#
	#
	#

	He ~~also~~ ~~has~~ a ~~long~~ ~~history of personal attacks~~ on ~~others,~~ ~~like~~ ~~this~~ ~~one about my parents, for which he got no block.~~ ~~] (]) 13:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)~~		'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	::I was not reported many times. Also by framing me you will not hide your own behavior. You have made no explanations for your continuous reverts on both pages that are liked here. All yo have said about me, actually you have said about yourself. And there is a perfect example, anyone that looks at the article about Social Democratic Party of Croatia can see that you have engaged in a edit war, and have ignored the talk page, like you always do. I have asked a administrator what to do with users like you who behave like they own an article, and I have been instructed, if they do not stop reverting, to report them, as I did with you and that other user. I have not broken the 3RR, and I have been told if it goes to that extent, that I have to break it, then it is better to report a user who obviously will break that rule, rather then to break the 3RR myself. I have always begged users to stop edit-warring and to discuss the matter on the talk page, but I was always ignored. That is very frustrating, and that is Tzowus modus operandi. He always does that, probably hoping that the other user will back up and go away. He is a bully and he needs to be sanctioned. He has used the fact that I am, or was, a new user to the Misplaced Pages, and exploited that fact. Please stop him. Tnx --] (]) 14:57, 4 October 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.
	:::You were involved in edit wars and was reported way more times than I was, and those in which I was involved are almost all because of your behaviour. Right now you are involved in two of them, and just because your revert was done a few hours after the deadline of 3RR doesn't mean it is fine. Read ]. I always went to the talk page when you started your unreasonable reverts just because they were done by me and they all ended in the same way, you act like some sort of protector of a page and block any edits to it. This is what those discussions look like, you insult my parents , call me a liar ... In the last few days you reverted changing of official coalition names (]) and adding of County prefects numbers to party infoboxes (while for example the ] and ] even have the London Assembly in their infoboxes), you are just deliberately disrupting other users edits to get them reported. You should have been topic banned long ago, at least when the incident with Timbouctou happened and you for some reason got out of that without any block. ] (]) 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	:::::Anyone who looks at the history of that page can see that I am not the only user who edits that page, so your argument is invalid. But when you come to a page and edit something, you immediately begin to edit war just because you think that you OWN the article, or maybe have the right to edit whatever you like. Still anything you said does not explain your behavior, and will not exonerate you in any way. I am not forcing anyone to start a edit-war, but I will never back up to bullies like you. You think that you can edit whatever you want and when someone reverts your disruptive edits, you always start a edit war. Well attack is the best defense, and all you are left is with personal attacks on me. I never wanted to report you, but what choice have you left me? Have you shown any good faith and reverted yourself ant tried to resolve the issue on the talk page of the article? You have not. This is about your edits on two articles mentioned in the report. You have not explained your behavior. It would be great if you could explain how I am "deliberately disrupting other users edits to get them reported", wow that is really something. Anyone can see what you are doing. You are all hat and no cattle. Now when you are reported, now you are trying to explain your edits. Well sir, the talk page is for that very reason there, to explain, and not to edit-war, you have ignored that. If you have gone to the talk page, and shown any good faith and reverted yourself, this all could have been avoided. Tnx --] (]) 17:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

			There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::Well I'm not the one going on reverting in a rampage style everything someone adds that I don't like. How many edit wars you had just in the last few months? You started reverting Thewanderer because he added the correct names of party coalitions and me because I added the County prefects/Župans in the infobox of other parties. If you took a look at other parties, like the ones from UK I already mentioned, or the ], you could have seen that others have even more information and more numbers in the infobox, just like I said in the edit summary. But no, you just had to do what you always do, revert and annoy. Just as a note, on every issue we had you were the one that started reverting and edit warring first. On the Economy of Croatia, LGBT Rights in Croatia, Franjo Tuđman, SDP and HNS parties, in all of them you started the rampage for nothing. I had more reasonable discussions even with single purpose IP's on articles that are by itself very controversial. As for this issue, I have nothing more to say. I broke the 3RR rule, but you broke like a dozen of them. And talking about personal attacks... ] (]) 19:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	:Again, this is not the place for you to explain your edits, you should have done that long before on the talk page of the article in question. You have broken the rule. There is nothing more to say. --] (]) 21:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

			:]
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 6 months) ==
			:"""
			:] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-delete3 --> ] (]) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ] (]) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: They're up to it again ] (]) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:""" ] (]) 01:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			: NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ] (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. ] (]) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Howard Hughes}} <br />
			::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|72.208.249.52}}
			::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: ) ==
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			# {{diff2\|1268291574\|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user has ignored numerous user talk warnings, all directing them to the article talk page. I feel opening a thread in article talk would be a waste of time. Apparently, the other three or four experienced editors who have been involved with this issue agree.
			# {{diff2\|1268272867\|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
			# {{diff2\|1268269093\|23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268248948\|21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br /> This is a slow-burn edit war. Beginning in July, this user has tried nine (9) times to change Hughes's birthplace without sourcing. They have been reverted by multiple experienced editors, and they have ignored numerous user talk warnings about behavior not only in this article but others as well. I see no end in sight until the user dies, and it would make no sense to continue this edit war indefinitely. Therefore it's either semi-protection or a fairly long-term block, and I think the latter is the more sensible choice as the user is not otherwise a significant contributor to the project. ―] ] 22:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
	*{{AN3\|b\|6 months}} Probably more suited to ] given their posts to ] ] <sup>]</sup> 22:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

			:'''Comment:''' I tried had a discussion with the IP editor on their talk page about misunderstandings on the definition on 'environment' which they seemed to come around on. But then they started adding in and edit warring there . Blatant troll ]. ] (]) 02:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Programmatic media}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Jugdev}}

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|684168176\|00:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Please refer to my earlier comments on the talk page... Key distinction has been overlooked."
	# {{diff2\|684164748\|00:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 684162930 by ] (]) no explanation."
	# {{diff2\|684141519\|21:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 684128172 by ] (]) no response on the items listed on talk page. all edits appear redundant"
	# {{diff2\|684126249\|19:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "See talk page"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|684142829\|21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|684099677\|15:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Tightening up wording */ support/objections to stubbing?"
	# {{diff2\|684130104\|19:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Tightening up wording */ r"
	# {{diff2\|684131801\|19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ r"
	# {{diff2\|684141969\|21:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ request"
	# {{diff2\|684148657\|21:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ cmt"
	# {{diff2\|684153072\|22:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ r"
	# {{diff2\|684161132\|23:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Revised intro */ r"
	# {{diff2\|684161606\|23:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ Simple is better. Technical readers have other sources of information that Misplaced Pages (I hope!)"
	# {{diff2\|684162497\|23:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Revised intro */ cmt"
	# {{diff2\|684162635\|23:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Revised intro */ ce and sp"
	# {{diff2\|684162701\|23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Revised intro */ Spelling/grammar correction"
	# {{diff2\|684164426\|00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Revised intro */ r"
	# {{diff2\|684165222\|00:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Revised intro */ Question on revert to lead"
	# {{diff2\|684165546\|00:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Revised intro */ PS -"
	# {{diff2\|684168449\|00:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Revised intro */ r"
	# {{diff2\|684173616\|01:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Revised intro */ r"

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Continuing to edit war immediately after previous EW block expired. ]] 01:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268310745\|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
			# {{diff2\|1268310470\|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268310062\|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268308804\|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
			# {{diff2\|1268308036\|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==


	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Agoda.com}}
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Boonchong_chua}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Previous version reverted to: # {{diff2\|684071222\|11:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)}}

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

	;Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	#
	#
	#
	#

	;Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page:

	#
	#
	#

	;Comments:

	*The article has been subjected to ongoing disruptive edits and edit warring by user ], whose history of Misplaced Pages contributions have focused solely on this article ].

	*Edits were inappropriate and unfit for an encyclopedia. Attempts to engage have been made on the article talk page as well as the user's talk page.

	*Disruptive editing and edit warring with this particular user has been going on since 2014 ]. History clearly shows edit warring between ] and several other users.

	*The user also appears to be biased with no intention of improving the Misplaced Pages article. This diff ] includes what appears to be an exchange between ] and ] customer service. A user bearing the same username - boonchong chua - has been leaving negative reviews on the ] app page on the Google Play Store claiming that it is a scam.

	*The above suggests suggest that ] is not contributing to Misplaced Pages objectively, while violating Misplaced Pages's content policies, namely neutral point of view and no original research, as well as Misplaced Pages conduct policies such as consensus.

	*Full disclosure: I am the creator of the article. I am also an employee of Agoda Malaysia International (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. I would like to be transparent and abide by Misplaced Pages's guidelines on conflict of interest and paid contributions. Any contributions made on matters related to Agoda.com will remain factual and reliably sourced. My aim is to work with impartial editors on any issues that may arise. As the article creator, I have complied with Misplaced Pages's paid contribution disclosure guidelines. Disclosures have been made on my ] page and edit summaries.

	] (]) 03:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Johann Sebastian Bach}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Francis Schonken}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	I would say his initial protectionism over the page could fall under good stewardship. It's very hard for me to view repeated attempts to ''shut down'' discussion—let alone editing my talk page comments in violation of linked policy well past 3rr—as a positive thing. Also, since we're going to have eyeballs on the page now, kindly add some thoughts on the ''original'' issue regarding the formatting of the page's References section. — ] 14:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	:The RfC should be worded neutrally before the RfC is launched. Why it is not neutral is explained by another editor who replied to a 3O request, and confirmed by me as the what for me was the reason to consider it lacking in neutrality.
	:Please {{u\|LlywelynII}} consider rewording the RfC more neutrally, then we're all set to launch it properly. --] (]) 14:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
	::Again, at this point, "over-protective" is a profoundly neutral phrasing of your behavior. I ''did'' follow the 3O's advice and removed even that minimal venting from the discussion below the RFC. All the same, your behavior at this point has been such that ''someone'' other than me should explain why you should never act like this again. (And then probably yell at me, too.) — ] 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for the rewording. --] (]) 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
	:<s>OK, I think I can strike that last comment, the RfC has been reworded neutrally it is launched, and I'm fully OK with that. --] (]) 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)</s>
	:Need to strike my comment as someone had posted something in between so that my comment could have been misconstrued.
	:Anyway, I'm fully OK with the reworded RfC and it being launched. --] (]) 15:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:36, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

User:Chance997 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: Blocked one week)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "a ] containing an ] alien ]" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words "red-striped black hedgehog" at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the fictional hedgehog in question). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, User:Carlinal and User:Barry Wom, citing MOS:OVERLINK as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at Sonic the Hedgehog 2 to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:ToadGuy101 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

User being reported: ToadGuy101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267757647 by CipherRephic (talk)"
14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267751974 by John (talk)Stop whining about him"
14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267747738 by Czello (talk)"
13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2024 United Kingdom general election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"

Comments:

User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. Belbury (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Mindxeraser reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 reported by User:DandelionAndBurdock (Result: /64 blocked two weeks)

User being reported: 2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Blocked – for a period of two weeks The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Csknp reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Page already protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"
01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio

Comments: This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. Vestrian24Bio 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... Vestrian24Bio 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected (by BusterD) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.

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

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

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

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

"I "tried to delete me reporting them""

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

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

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

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

The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level

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

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

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

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

I notify the user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:80.200.232.89 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

Categories: