Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:40, 11 January 2016 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →User:Zippy268 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Warned): Closing← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,733 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/Header}}] ] <!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 304 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f |key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|New Girl}} <br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Tenebrae}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* All times are in UTC


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


Diffs of the user's reverts: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# <small>"''See the template's documentation. Claims of running time MUST be cited.''"</small>
# <small>"''You can't just say that. You have to WP:CITE it. If you can't be bothered to properly footnote, you shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages.''"</small>
# <small>"''per Template:Infobox television: "Reliable source required"''"</small>
# <small>"''Don't threaten me on my talk page. You're violating the outcome of the RfC, and I quoted directly from what the ADMIN directed be put into the template. I'll ask that same admin to speak with you''"</small>
<!-- # <small>"''''"</small>
# <small>"''''"</small> -->


Diff of 3RR warning:


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


<u>Comments:</u> <br />
In March 2015 Tenebrae opened an RfC at ] about runtimes (archived ]). The RfC was closed for technical purposes, due to the wording used by Tenebrae in the RfC question, with no outcome that could be called consensus. However, he took it upon himself to change the documentation for {{tl|Infobox television}}, so that it supported his position. Recently Tenebrae has been removing runtimes from multiple articles, edit-warring sometimes and occasionally removing the parameter entirely, not just the actual runtimes. At ] he reverted an IP who had changed the runtime from "22 minutes" to "21-24 minutes", by removing the content entirely. After he did this a second time I reverted him as he has been misrepresenting the RfC outcome. (see below for further comment) He reverted that, after which I left a 3RR warning on his talk page. He then made his 4th revert at ] 4 minutes later, and only then did he start to discuss. Regarding the RfC, Tenebrae's question was essentially "Do we need citations for runtimes or can editors measure it themselves". The RfC close was {{tq|This discussion is moot. Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change ] to make an exception for such cases. An RfC among editors with a specific area of interest, and by definition biased in favour of a liking for the minutiae of TV shows, cannot be an appropriate venue for overriding foundational policy.}} In a subsequent post as the result of questions, the RfC closer wrote {{tq|The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... I encourage a separate RfC based on these questions, if they remain points of contention. The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time}} Unfortunately, Tenebrae refuses to accept this and insists that the outcome of the RfC was that citations are needed in the infobox in all cases. However, this is tangential to this report, which provides evidence that Tenebrae has reverted 4 times in 14 hours at ], despite a warning, and that he has therefore violated ]. --] (]) 17:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
:As we know, 3RR doesn't apply to reversion of vandalism. Not abiding by an RfC is vandalism and deliberately inserting uncited OR in defiance of it is vandalism.
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
:Per this RfC's , TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is ].


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
:In the closing admin's words: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases".
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:He reiterated it under "Thank you, and a question": "'''A reliable third party source is required.''' ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:] advocates for putting uncited running times and having us take his word for it. That's against Misplaced Pages policy, and between that and defying the RfC, he is committing vandalism.
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
:He also deliberately misrepresents me. I ''never'' said running time has to be cited in the infobox; only that it has to be cited. I even stated this at Talk:New Girl : "Content that's cited in the article body doesn't have to be re-cited in the infobox." So I have to question an editor who would deliberately tell an untruth that way.--] (]) 19:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


::And now I see that ''he himself'' has made the very edit I was requesting, giving a cite at . So he could have done this at any time, solving the issue between us &mdash; but instead chose to bait me? I think ] might be considered here. --] (]) 19:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:::As I've already indicated on Tenebrae's talk page, per ], {{tq|Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism.}} The RfC did not close with a consensus and RfCs are not binding. There is nothing in any of the multiple reversions of Tenebrae's edits by 3 different editors that identify them as vandalism. Therefore, Tenebrae can't claim to be reverting vandalism.
:::{{tq|''he himself'' has made the very edit I was requesting}} - I was too busy dealing with your edit-warring at multiple articles. As I indicated to you on my talk page, you could have just challenged the content with {{tl|citation needed}} and left it at that, which would have simplified the situation. There was no need to edit war after I warned you.
:::I don't intend commenting further, except to note the incivility when he berated the IP for not including a citation. --] (]) 19:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
::::Arguing that "RfCs are not binding" seems an argument of truly last resort. The RfC ended with the consensus that you can't just guesstimate running time and have us take your word for it &mdash; as the closing admin said, the entire question was moot since ], which you were advocating. The admin made very clear, in his own words, that "'''a reliable third party source is required.'''" Choosing to deliberately ignore this cornerstone policy after being reminded of it isn't "bold" &mdash; editing against a cornerstone policy isn't "bold". It's the definition of vandalism. --] (]) 22:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
::::One additional note: He hypocritically doesn't seem to care, or to note here, when his friend is uncivil toward me. AussieLegend was involved in the discussion where ] said, "you could've avoided all of this shit by sourcing the damn thing yourself instead of being fucking lazy" &mdash; in violation, I might add, of the dictum that the burden of citation falls on the editor who adds claims to an article. --] (]) 22:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
:::::Just one observation - Me and AL have very rarely contributed together - Infact I can't remember the last time we even spoke so you can drop that card for a start! - I simply saw the runtime removal and disagreed with it, I stand 100% by that comment - AL never added the runtimes in the first place so you should've added a source instead of being lazy which could've prevented all of this mess!, All that aside you did edit war repeatedly, After AL reverted you you should've stopped and had a discussion but you instead edit warred repeatedly and I guarantee had I not reverted you would've carried on anyway .... –] <sup>]</sup> 22:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
::::::In this seemingly never-ending array of picking and choosing which Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines some editors choose to follow, I must point out &mdash; for the third time, since this is one ] chooses to ignore &mdash; that ] says (boldface from the page itself): "The '''burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material''', and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." So who is the "lazy" one, sir? --] (]) 23:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::::::And incidentally, I was the one who ''did'' start a talk-page discussion, . --] (]) 23:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:::::::Which you did only after you'd violated 3RR, . --] (]) 12:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
: Runtimes must be sourced. AussieLegend knows this as he was part of the RfC. If AussieLegend is adding runtimes from personal observation, that is ] and forbidden by policy. AussieLegend also knows this. ] is canonical policy, not a guideline. If AussieLegend wants to ignore policy, then he will be blocked. The simple solution is to find a reliable source for the runtime, and cite it. Adding it without a source is not only a violation of policy, it is also disruptive, because AussieLegend ''knows'' that adding unsourced runtimes does not enjoy wither consensus or the support of policy. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
# {{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"
::There was never any outcome from the RfC that said runtimes must be '''cited'''. You said that yourself when you said {{tq|The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time}}. The concern here is that Tenebrae is arbitrarily removing runtimes, sometimes even removing the entire parameter, without even giving editors the incentive to provide a citation by adding {{tl|citation needed}}. More relevant to this discussion is that he has demonstrated that he is willing to edit-war instead of collaborating with other editors to provide an outcome that actually improves the encyclopaedia. You even suggested {{tq|I encourage a separate RfC based on these questions, if they remain points of contention}}. Tenebrae never even did that, which would have solved the problem once and for all. --] (]) 23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1267995715|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
::: That's not an outcome from the RfC, that's canonical policy. ]. Runtimes, like everything else, must be verifiable by reference to reliable independent sources. That doesn't prejudge where it's sourced (you could put inline text saying the runtime is X minutes within the body, referenced back to a source), but you don't have the option of not sourcing this information because you ''know'' it will be challenged, and the onus is on the editor seeking to include challenged material, to justify and source its inclusion. That is absolutely core tot he whole ethos of Misplaced Pages. It's not specific to runtimes. I am not going to explain this again. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1267994453|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
::::Actually, film and television plots aren't usually referenced by anything verifiable. ] (]) 11:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
::::: That may very well be true, and if so, the figures should be removed per ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::Do you mean the plots should be removed? Because if you do, there are a fair few FAs that will need to be delisted... ] (]) 11:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::WP:V requires that all content be attributable to reliable sources, it doesn't require that everything be cited. As I've explained below, the runtimes don't fall under "likely to be challenged", so there is no normal requirement to cite every one. If Tenebrae adds {{tl|citation needed}} instead of deleting runtimes that encourages editors to add citations and eventually it will encourage them to add citations without prompting. However, it was explained at the RfC and prior to that at at ] why TV episode runtimes are difficult to cite. Runtimes can vary significantly throughout the history of a series, so the time in the infobox is only an approximation, usually a close one. Even reliable sources can be confusing on this. For example, shows episode lengths of 22 minutes for most episodes, but one is 24 minutes. though had several 22 minute episodes and several 21 minute episodes. Other programs, like Top Gear can have episodes that vary in length from around 50-65 minutes. To cite Top Gear properly you'd need 22 citations, one for each series. --] (]) 12:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::::{{tq|you don't have the option of not sourcing this information because you ''know'' it will be challenged}} - That's not correct at all. The only person challenging runtimes is Tenebrae. Runtimes don't seem to be challenged by anyone else so they don't fall under "likely to be challenged". Tenebrae's method of dealing with runtimes is counter-productive. He deletes the runtimes instead of challenging them with {{tl|citation needed}} and, from what I've seen, does very little else in TV articles. In a few days, weeks or months somebody comes along, doesn't know the runtime has been deleted and adds it again, putting the article back to where it was before Tenebrae came along.
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
::::{{tq|you could put inline text saying the runtime is X minutes within the body}} - I guess you don't edit many TV articles. This is something that is almost never seen in TV articles. Generally, the only mention of runtimes is in the infobox. However, this is all tangential to the issue, which again is that Tenebrae, rather than editing collaboratively, violated 3RR at ] after he was warned. --] (]) 12:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
::::: From ]:
:::::: ''All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately.''
::::: It does not say how many people have to be likely to challenge it. You cannot possibly claim that you are unaware it is likely to be challenged. Now stop playing silly buggers and get on with adding properly sourced content. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::How is runtime different from plot content? And those FAs also have uncited runtimes... So should we start tagging those? ] (]) 12:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Using Guy's argument ''everything'' on Misplaced Pages is likely to be challenged and therefore everything should be cited. {{tl|Infobox television}} is used in over 36,500 articles and runtime is only ever challenged by Tenebrae in a handful of articles. On this occasion it was because he was following an IP who was making good faith edits, so he hit more articles than usual. Using a bit of common sense tells you that runtime is unlikely to be challenged. A single editor with an agenda doesn't make it likely. But again, this is supposed to be about Tenebrae's violation of 3RR. --] (]) 12:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::I think there's a precedent to be set here. If ] is happy to overlook the 3RR based on a need to provide a verifiable source for the run time of a television episode, yet we have featured articles which don't even do this, and massive sections of FAs which have not one single verifiable secondary source for the plot section, there's a fundamental problem with JzG's "absolute" claim. I would like to see JzG comment back here with regard to the fact that he is clearly unaware that many FAs don't do what he expects, as a minimum, and therefore re-appraise this notice in that context. Or else I'd like to see {{U|Tenebrae}} doing the right thing and start tagging all those issues on all the FAs because, after all, those items appear on the main page from to time, so heaven forbid one does without a run time that is verified by a reliable secondary source. ] (]) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
], the closing admin of the RfC, isn't ignoring 3RR at all. Once again: 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Deliberately inserting a clearly disallowed, ] edit after being told that it violates both ''core policy'' and an RfC closing is both vandalism and ] disruption.


Some articles don't cite running times? That doesn't set a precedent, as the editors in this discussion surely know and some choose to ignore. ]. Ultimately, two editors are advocating for an OR exception for TV runtimes as opposed to movie runtimes. I don't believe that is a viable or responsible argument. We ''can'' cite runtimes &mdash; even ] did so, albeit grudgingly. I don't know why anyone would spend so much time arguing ''not'' to do so.--] (]) 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:If run times now need a citation, like plots do (if that's what JzG is claiming) then we have a large issue that needs further discussion. It also renders this discussion somewhat moot until it's resolved. I'm not sure I understand why a whole plot section can go without a single citation (presumably because someone has watched the movie and written about it) yet the run time (which is trivial in comparison) suddenly needs a citation. It's utterly illogical and actually shows that some editors are more here to pursue inconsistent and pointed wiki-lawyering, and not to improve Misplaced Pages. Please be advised that if this report closes as JzG seems to wish it closed, we'll need to start addressing all the FAs and GAs that have entirely unreferenced plot sections, and I will be using this discussion as the precedent to do so. So let's get this right. (P.S. {{xt| Ultimately, two editors are advocating for an OR exception for TV runtimes as opposed to movie runtimes}} not just that, one of us is asking why plots can go citation-free and run times, according to you and JzG, can't.... Answer that please). ] (]) 22:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
::I wish the waters weren't being muddied, I hope not deliberately, by this tangential foray into film plots. The pertinent MOS at ] cites ] and ] to state clearly that a movie itself is used as the source for the plot. Alright?
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::A quantifiable measurement, like running time, is completely different. So let's not suggest that the sky is falling, please. --] (]) 22:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
::: No-one is making such a suggestion, I wonder why you start acting so defensively? I am simply examining the claim made by JzG that everything should be verified and of course film plots have no such verifiable secondary sources. Of course, that is more absurd than getting highly strung about a runtime (which, of course, is as easily observable as a film plot). ] (]) 07:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* I am prepared to overlook AussieLegend's deliberate violation of ], his wilful refusal to honour the outcome of an RfC whose close he did not like, and his transparent attempts to trap Tenebrae into a violation he could report. I'm even prepared - ''for now'' to hold off requesting a community sanction forbidding AussieLegend from adding unsourced runtimes. I'm prepared to overlook this because they are both behaving like children, and although blocking them both would be temporarily satisfying I am not convinced that it would be anything other than retaliatory by now. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
#
::@JzG: Agree. But if you close this report, please try to do so in a final way that will keep the same dispute from showing up at other articles. Warning one or both editors that they might be blocked if they continue is one option. ] (]) 05:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
#
:::This has become absolutely ridiculous. I made no "deliberate violation of ]" as claimed by Guy. That's crap. To go back to evidence that I've already presented, because people are seemingly ignoring it:
#
:::* Tenebrae started an RfC asking effectively "Do we need citations for runtimes or can editors measure it themselves".
#
:::* Guy closed the RfC stating {{tq|Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change ] to make an exception for such cases.}} This caused confusion so he clarified that in a subsequent post.
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:::* The clarification stated {{tq|The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time}}. Nowhere does the close say that citations have to be included. In fact Guy's clarification specifically states that his close only applies to the use of OR.
he removed my warning for whatever reason
:::* The final sentence in the closer's clarification sums up the close well: {{tq|Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind.}} In other words, nothing changed. The requirement to cite runtimes was not added.
:::* Despite what seems clear wording, Tenebrae was reverting changes by an IP saying in his edit summaries "See the template's documentation. Claims of running time MUST be cited". However, as indicated by Guy's clarification, the RfC close said nothing about the need to cite runtimes in all circumstances, just that OR could not be used, and the template documentation only says what it says because Tenebrae added it to the documentation. Well, actually it doesn't say that any more. The requirement to cite was removed later and the documentation now only says "Reliable source required", which Tenebrae clearly agrees with. Because somebody will no doubt fail to check the edit history I will point out that my edit immediately prior to his was a simple formatting change for consistency, which Tenebrae reverted in his edit.
:::* It was because of this clear misrepresentation of the stated outcome of the RfC that I reverted Tenebrae, not as a {{tq|wilful refusal to honour the outcome of an RfC whose close he did not like}}. That claim by Guy is also rubbish. We have had lengthy discussions about this, resulting in this "{{Abbr|compromise|I gave up}}" series of changes to the documentation: That being the case Guy has no basis on which to claim that my actions were wilful.
:::I am not sure why I am being targeted by Guy here. I wasn't the only one to revert Tenebrae. There were at least two other editors who did so. It seems a bit of a vendetta, simply because I opened this report. --] (]) 09:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
::::While I'm loathe to respond to this litany, with its spectacularly annoying green typeface, I need to respond to claims that an admin and I both somehow misinterpreted the admin's own conclusion and that only this editor interprets it correctly. RE: "The RfC close said nothing about the need to cite runtimes in all circumstances, just that OR could not be used." First, ] applies to all circumstances of quantitative claims. A close doesn't have to tell us to follow a core policy. We just follow core policies. Second If OR is "not ... used", then ipso facto, one is citing one's claims: If one can't or won't say where a claim is coming from, then it's coming from oneself. That's OR. --] (]) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:::::So ] doesn't apply to qualitative claims all of a sudden? Where do you get that idea? ] (]) 17:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
::::::Where did ''you'' get the idea I said that?? We're talking about running times. Running time are quantitative. This reads as if you're trying to obfuscate and muddy the waters by bringing in tangential, unrelated topics. We are ''only'' talking about running times.--] (]) 15:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
*'''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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned user(s)) ==


:That sounds good to me. I’m guessing he will get reverted anyway. If he reverts again, I’ll mention it here. ] (]) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Chris Pitman}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Backwaters}}


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
Previous version reverted to:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None, but I had warned him to stop per ] and ], no single attempt to discuss


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]; ]; and ]


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{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:'''
It's enough. I'm quite sure Backwaters is Pitman himself, or at least he knows him personally. But this Misplaced Pages article doesn't belong to him. The article is greatly unsourced, but replace it with even more unsourced content is not OK, as is edit-warring rather than to discuss it. ] ]<sup>]</sup> (]). 20:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
*{{AN3|w}} This will do for now. Further disruption may warrant a block <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 20:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Backwaters was only correcting a long unverified and unreliable source used: http://www.mygnr.com/members/chris.html
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
This is not edit warring, but edit correcting with proper and verified information.
Misplaced Pages:Reasons for deletion states:
6.Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
3.Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
14.Any other content not suitable for an encyclopediaBackwaters (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)] (]) 23:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


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


== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Veganism}}
;User reported: {{userlinks|Zippy268}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
*Version reverted to: : someone removed "particularly from diet" from the first sentence.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}
:*'''1st revert''': : removed "particularly in diet"
:*'''2nd revert''': : removed "particularly in diet"
:*'''3rd revert''': : removed "particularly in diet"


* Edit: : added citation tag after "particularly in diet" '''Previous version reverted to:'''
:*'''4th revert''': : restored citation tag after "particularly in diet"


* Edit: : added NPOV tag
:*'''5th revert''': : restored NPOV tag


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Comments
#
{{u|Zippy268}} is a new account and has said he is a returning user. He may also be {{u|Tha1uw4nt}}, who began this series of edits in December to prioritize the definition of ''veganism'' adopted by the British Vegan Society.


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
The issue is that lots of vegans (probably most) are dietary vegans only. They don't eat animal products, but they may still wear leather shoes, and so on. Ethical vegans go further and oppose all animal use. Ethical vegans often argue that dietary vegans aren't really vegans, and they arrive occasionally at the article to force their definition into the lead. That's what's happening here.


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Zippy268 was warned at about the edit-warring policy and about 3RR, and again at . ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
::The idea that I may be {{u|Tha1uw4nt}} is completely unfounded. The issue in question is also being misrepresented by ] ] (]) 21:06, 8 January 2016 (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.
::Sarah has described the problem accurately and without bias. I support a block on Zippy268 because he has not only edit warred after being warned multiple times, he has also engaged in IDHT behavior in every user and article talk page discussion. ] (]) 02:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' ] is '''warned'''. They may be blocked if they restore the NPOV tag again, or revert the lead again, before getting a clear consensus on the talk page. ] (]) 16:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
== ] reported by ] (Result: no violation) ==


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


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#


:]
Hi, Please see in my opinion ]. ] is located in ] in ] region, ] and this user write this lake for region of Kurdistan..please consider it<font size="+1" face="phalls Khodkar, B Fantezy, B Ferdosi" color="#9966FF">''']'''<sup>]</sup></font> 20:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
:"""
*{{AN3|nve}} ]<sup>]</sup> 11:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
:] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at ], 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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Two editors warned) ==
::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
::Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
::Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
::I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
::3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with ] (]) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}}. This report is a mess. ] (]) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment ] (]) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{re|NotQualified}} Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--] (]) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. ] (]) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
*::::# I add templates to an article with faults
*::::# The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
*::::# I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
*::::# They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
*::::# I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
*::::# Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
*::::# I notify the user
*::::# I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
*::::# Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
*::::# You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
*::::I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
*:::::That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
*:::::I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
*:::::I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. ] (]) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Madaya, Syria}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Axxxion}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
<!-- 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. -->


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
Previous version 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:
#
#
#
#
# (removal of the same content including reference 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 -->
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1268272867|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
3RR warning:
# {{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:'''
<!-- 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|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
I was not involved in the dispute. Axxion conducted edit war with other users without any talking .


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
Axxion continued edit warring (5th revert) even after receiving a 3RR warning from me .


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
There are community sanctions in this subject area. tell: "reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." This is a clear 3RR violation, "subject to the usual rules on edit warring". ] (]) 21:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


:'''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)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*The situation is partly misrepresented by the disguised editor (administrator) above: my deletion (twice such as ) of my own text (it had been me who had put it there in the first place) sourced by CNN article (should I cross myself while typing it?) was due to a sheer duplication of this bit: it was still there, at the top of the section. Other sources are referencing Twitter. Is it RS now? So what is written above is part misrepresentation (through overlooking, i suppose), part misinterpretation. The real problem is that the article continues to be vandalised by IPs as evidenced by the latest blankings, etc. It should be semi-protected, like all other Syria-related ones.] (]) 14:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
:*{{reply|Axxxion}} What "disguised (administrator) above"? My very best wishes is not an administrator. For the moment, all I've done is place a sanctions notice on the Talk page and notify TheWikiManRules, a new user, of the sanctions. Axxxion was notified in December 2015, although the notification wasn't done with the proper template or recorded at ]. Still, I don't think they can reasonably say they were unaware of the sanctions.--] (]) 15:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
:::I find the whole discussion misguided, if not farcical: Is our purpose to create good articles, or be continuously engaged in meaningless squabbles? It is quite clear that for the sake of the former, the article needs protection. As for " My very best wishes", I honestly do not know what this creature is. Another feature of meaningless overzealous policing of the WP: it has become too complicated to navigate: one needs to hire a specialised lawyer to suss things out.] (]) 15:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
::::Don't call another editor a "creature"; it's ].--] (]) 16:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::The revert war was being continued by IPs, so I've imposed semiprotection. Will leave this report open for more comments. ] (]) 17:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
:*'''Result:''' ] and ] are both warned for 1RR violation. This should not continue. See ]. ] (]) 23:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
== ] reported by ] (Result: no violation) ==
:And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. ] (]) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. ] (]) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. ] (]) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at ], not one as you claim. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. ] (]) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article ']' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Kurdistan}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Samak}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
Hi, please look carefully reverts by . Urmia lake is located in historical geographical ] region, Iran and this user delete all of articles.. Please block it ] <sup>]</sup> 22:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nve}} ]<sup>]</sup> 11:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: no violation ) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|South_of_the_Border_(attraction)}}
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Labattblueboy}}
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"


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


;Diffs of the user's reverts:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


Here's a brief overview of what I found so far, and I only went back as far as June before I quit. Yowza. Well, if this helps anyone, here you go. Sorry it's not formatted properly. ]&nbsp;<small>(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;])</small> 05:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<code>
11:56 5 June -- del - 96.253.26.19 Removed a personal opinion from the description.


Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
12:01 5 June -- add - Labattblueboy "an arguably racist" -- see talk page. comments cited
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
04:31 26 June -- chg - 104.61.153.65 from "arguably racist" to "arguably offensive" -- Mexican isn't a race. It's a nationality.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
05:34 20 July -- del - 71.121.136.187


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
15:28 29 July -- add - Labattblueboy return "an arguably offensive"


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
19:55 31 July -- del - 107.14.49.1


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
17:22 3 August -- add - Labattblueboy "an arguably offensive" - per sources
# {{diff2|1268346980|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
# {{diff2|1268346280|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
# {{diff2|1268345229|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
14:22 22 August -- chg - Erielhonan changed "arguably offensive" to "offensive" - "removed unnecessary adjective"


17:50 31 August -- del - 198.252.245.194 changed "offensive" to "non-offensive" then deleted


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
05:47 1 September -- add - Labattblueboy Reverted edits to last version by Erielhonan


23:57 7 September -- del - 71.70.167.48


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
09:12 8 September -- add - Labattblueboy "offensive"


Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
03:10 12 September -- del - 66.87.143.225 Fixed wording


This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
09:26 12 September -- add - Labattblueboy added with change to "arguably offensive"
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That is because {{u|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{u|Shecose}}, {{tqq|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
15:35 16 September -- chg - Econ48 - changed to "politically incorrect"


== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
15:45 11 october -- del - Old Naval Rooftops


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
16:23 11 october -- add - Labattblueboy
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
00:30 19 october -- del - 98.225.173.217
# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
# "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
# "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"


07:38 19 october -- add - Labattblueboy "see cited sources"


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
05:49 7 december -- del - 104.10.137.189 "removed an opinion from the text"
#: "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
# "Lady Saso: Reply"


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
07:25 8 december -- add - Labattblueboy "statement is well cited"
# "Lady Saso: New Section"
# "Lady Saso: Reply"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
15:36 6 january -- del - 84.186.113.219 mobile edit
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.


Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
13:18 8 january -- add - Labattblueboy revert


In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
16:12 8 january -- del - CombatWombat42 undid rev. - wp:pov


Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
19:29 8 january -- add - Labattblueboy undid


End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think ] might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within after being inactive since based off their ].
22:24 8 january -- COMBAT WOMBAT MAKES AN3 REPORT
</code>
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


;<u>Comments:</u>
*{{AN3|nve}} Actually, you didn't provide any diffs or links at all. Please follow the instructions if/when you make future reports. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
:*Thanks @], I can actually read, there is absolutely NO requirement for a violation of 3rr to report or take action. as it says at the top of this page: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute", it is quite clear to me that ] is doing just that. Please read *all* documentation if/when you reply. ] (]) 15:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Navy}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GenFed}}

<!-- 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&diff=697098924&oldid=695762822

<!-- 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:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&diff=698952399&oldid=698951835
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&diff=698951508&oldid=698937810
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&type=revision&diff=698935380&oldid=698906694
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&diff=698906539&oldid=698851052

<!-- 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gen_Fed&diff=698953578&oldid=698942039

<!-- 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gen_Fed&diff=698642043&oldid=698586991 <br>
also https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gen_Fed&diff=698657544&oldid=698656301

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

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

See also the histories of ], ], ], ] and ]. This is a fully committed PoV warrior who is wholly closed to discussion. &mdash; Cheers, ] (]) 08:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ]<sup>]</sup> 11:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List_of_Kamen_Rider_Drive_characters}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2601:140:8200:DE:8873:CF68:1C56:27AF}}

<!-- 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Kamen_Rider_Drive_characters&diff=698920855&oldid=698814136

<!-- 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601:140:8200:DE:8873:CF68:1C56:27AF&oldid=698959603

<!-- 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 />
Note: I am the IP editor 166.* - the following edits are mine: ] (]) 17:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks| Football records in Spain}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|SupernovaeIA}} and {{userlinks|Suitcivil133}}

<!-- 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: (maybe wrong)

<!-- 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 (SupernovaeIA):
#
#
#
#

Diffs of the user's reverts (Suitcivil133):
#
#
#
#

These are just some of the most recent diffs. The dispute seems to go back at least three weeks.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: &

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

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

The personal dispute between these two editors dates back at least a year, see rather distasteful comment from December 2014. With comments like , or , to say nothing of edit summaries of the edits linked above, it's clear that neither of these editors is capable of engaging in discussion without accusing the other of misconduct. As such, I propose that the page be protected and both users blocked so that calmer heads may sort this mess out. Its worth noting that both editors have previous warnings for edit warring in other incidents. SupernovaeIA has a previous block for edit warring. Finally, a third editor involved in this dispute ] has been blocked indefinitely, mostly for behaviours unrelated to this. ] (]) 17:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
: Thanks for the very lengthy statement. However you seem to fail to see what the consensus was for that particular article. I was simply restoring it to the accepted consensus version. If you trace back the archives of this article's talk, you will easily find what went on. ] (]) 18:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This user is with all due respect a Nepali sock puppet who is using several usernames and a IP originating from Nepal. He is identical to the user "2001:620:d:4ad2::323". At least his disruptive edits are that. This individual is removing sourced material at will due to his bias. It obvious that he is a biased Real Madrid fan hellbent on disrupting data/information about FC Barcelona.

He is disrupting the consensus in the "Football records in Spain" page which has been upheld for years. Now he is removing sourced material and the reference that I have added directly from FIFA.com (highest football authority in the world) which confirms that the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup is recognized by FIFA as a major football honor. Moreover UEFA themselves recognizes it as the predecessor of the now defunct UEFA cup. In order for a trophy to be recognized as official in the "football records in Spain" page, RFEF, UEFA or FIFA has to recognize the trophy as official. In the case of the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup FIFA recognizes this trophy thus it must be included. Organizations such as the RSSSF and Association of Football Statisticians also recognize the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup.

http://es.fifa.com/news/y=2009/m=3/news=-1040575.html

If FIFA did not recognize the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup, why have they recognized the trophy as such? It's worth noticing that the key people behind the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup were members of FIFA. This dispute has prompted me to contact FIFA about this issue and I am 100% sure that they will confirm my stance, namely that FIFA does recognize the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup as an official major honor just as the same UEFA recognizes it to be the predecessor of the now defunct UEFA Cup. The only difference being that UEFA did not organize the trophy. If they had done so it would have been recognized by UEFA too.

--] (]) 08:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
: This user is no doubt a sockpuppet of many other Spanish catalonia based users. She has been trolling the article for months now and reverting the consensus version. The way she talks is a complete WP:Attack on other users. The references provided have been in the article for a long time and supports the consensus version bot a pro barca vandals version.] (]) 09:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. I semi-protected the article yesterday and today I discovered the edit-warring with over five reverts from each side. Now I fully protected the article (for a week, down from two weeks semi), and I recommend that both users be blocked for edit-warring and 3RR violation since both of them believe edit-warring to be a legitimate means of resolution of this content dispute.--] (]) 12:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|24.24.152.100}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|699014457|18:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Affluent was there several months ago...not sure why it's been removed?"
# {{diff2|699013136|18:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|698955409|08:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Stop changing!"
# {{diff2|698867449|19:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|699014104|18:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]."

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

IP edit-warring to add "affluent" to the lead as a description of a neighbourhood that judging by all official statistics '''isn't''' affluent... ] ] 18:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ]<sup>]</sup> 19:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks| Malheur National Wildlife Refuge}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|108.26.39.208}}

<!-- 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: Not really much to discuss on the talkpage, POV warrior complaining about a tangential topic, no response on their talkpage to my warning on NPOV (previous edit, since the diff link works for the second edit).

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Straight-up edit-warring over a couple of days to insert editorial commentary on a topic tangential to the main topic. At least in the form its been inserted, it wouldn't stand up in the main ] either. I've reverted twice, so I'll take no administrative action. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 20:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Semiprotected two months. ] (]) 01:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Marxism}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Jaccy Jaydy}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|699033307|21:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)}} "You can "support" the 4-th International via some other method (not rollback, new materials). Note: If Trotsky was very clever man - he could understand ideas of Marx on high level (not interpritation)."
# {{diff2|699041830|22:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)}} "You have no other arguments, only vandalism against relevant materials. And war of edits. Reminder: Misplaced Pages is not the Fourth International under mass murderer Leon Trotsky. Read article about this man. Rivers of blood."
# {{diff2|699046989|22:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Vandalism. One vandal uses support of other (nothing more). "This user is a Socialist." (supporter). Nobody will block me. Because I have no blame. Even id.ot understands aims of vandals (defend Marxism instead facts and high opinion). & the 4-th Inter.."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|699043281|22:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

* They violate the rules of Misplaced Pages. My main reply: "Misplaced Pages is not the Fourth International under Leon Trotsky !" I ask you use the common sense. I have no blame. Their aim: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:RolandR :

"This user identifies as a Marxist." "This user is a supporter of the Fourth International" (under sadly known marxist Leon Trotsky). RonaldR has very great right be blocked. Is not about me. ] (]) 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC) ] (]) 23:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Karait}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|YuHuw}} / {{userlinks|94.159.177.65}}

<!-- 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:
# by 94.159.177.65 (Undid revision 698738846 by Неполканов (talk) vandalism)
# by YuHuw (Undid revision 698961396 by Неполканов (talk) restoring sourced citations)
# by YuHuw (Undid revision 698970785 by Неполканов (talk) please do not make this into an edit war. Discuss the citations in Talk if you have a problem with them.)
# by YuHuw (Undid revision 699057357 by Toddy1 (talk) a lot of work went into that please take your issue to discussion)

YuHuw admits to being the same editor as 94.159.177.65 here:
* comment on talk page
* signing the above comment with edit summary "I made myself an account"

<!-- 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: ]
--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 13:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{U|Toddy1}} has only linked to the entire talk page, rather than give a specific diff. ] is their only edit to that page as of now. Edit summary: "This is just another one of Kaz's POV forks". See ]. You have no evidence that this is the blocked user {{U|Kaz}}, and have not attempted to resolve the dispute on that talk page. I find accusations that this new editor is engaging in "vandalism" another distasteful casting of aspersions. Difference in point-of-view, sure, vandalism, no. ] (]) 16:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Wbm1058}}. I have not accused YuHuw of vandalism. In the list of diffs, I listed one for with its time, the account that wrote it, and the edit summary. As regards settling differences, the link to the talk page shows evidence of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page. The reason no evidence of sockpuppetry has been presented on this page, is that this is the wrong venue. (PS it helps a lot if you post your comments at the bottom of the page.)--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 17:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

::Not having ever encountered the user before, I thought that the blanking of that article was simply an act of vandalism which needed reverting but I did explain my mis-assumption in the relevant talk page after that and the misunderstanding was overcome. (see my new para 3 here ) Although that User with a non-English Username (who originally blanked that page) is not here now, I would apologize to the User a second time for my mis-assumption if he wanted it, it was an honest mistake as I did not think he was a real editor at that time. ] (]) 18:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
::::He/she was not blanking the page. The page was originally a redirect. On 31 December 2015 the redirect was turned into an article by ]. Some people had/have a concern that the article was/is a ]. This view has been expressed both in edit summaries, and on the talk page. The by {{ping|Неполканов}} that YuHuw called "blanking" had an edit summary that explained the reasons for the revert, and that the revert was back to the version of 2008.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 18:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

:::::Anyway I believe the whole thing was just one big misunderstanding between us and was resolved amicably on the talk page as has been demonstrated. ] (]) 18:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

May I ask anyone who knows, are my comments below in the wrong place? ] (]) 18:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

May I also ask if anyone here recognizes this IP address? 202.9.41.173 It looks like a ] from ] and ] . ] (]) 06:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I can see I have been named here although it seems a bit jargonistic to me. I will try to understand what is going on as until recently I have not really done much more than read and make spelling corrections on wikipedia. I come in peace! :) ] (]) 13:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

OK I think there is a bit of bad faith about me being assumed by the User:Toddy1 here. First of all I was very polite to Неполканов both in the edit history and on the ] page , . Although I perceived some disruptive editing and called for mediation and I have to confess I didn't understand every point he made and as it seems English is not his first language although he does very well and things were resolved. I made sure each point he made was acted upon as you can see , , and and also expressed my respect for his knowledge on Jewish topics and hoped we could work together in future projects .

As soon as we had reached a consensus and resolved all issues, along came the user who has posted this complaint, and reverted everything perhaps overlooking by accident our discussions. Instead he has assumed bad faith about me and called me "Kaz" or "Kazimir" over and again , , , , , , despite my requests for him to stop doing so , , . Looking through his history, it seems I am not the only person he does this to, but apparently to everyone who presents a different view to his own on the Crimean Karaites (in this case I think i upset him by distinguishing Crimea from Ukraine ).

I have asked for discussion with the user but I was ignored and mocked instead .

I really have done the best I could think of to avoid conflict and resolve issues through discussion, but the User sees simply prejudiced against me. I would very much welcome any kind of mediation to resolve things between us so that we can both enjoy editing wikipedia in peace. ] (]) 14:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

70% of article deleted by Yuhuw. It is obvious vandalism:
. Yuhuw is sockpuppet of hongirid and kaz. Their edits are very similar: , <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:10, 11 January 2016 </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Jamshedpur‎}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|L435534l}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|699157283|16:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699157131 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699155836|16:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699155726 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699155569|16:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699154331 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699145177|15:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699145107 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699144909|15:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699144879 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699144641|15:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699144597 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699144471|15:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699144443 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699144296|15:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699144233 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699144092|15:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699144034 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699143648|15:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699143536 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699143427|15:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699142937 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699141794|14:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699140096 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699139869|14:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699138485 by ] (])"
# {{diff|oldid=699101840|diff=699126449|label=Consecutive edits made from 12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC) to 12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|699126420|12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699101840 by ] (])"
## {{diff2|699126449|12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699101144 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|698993085|15:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 698986842 by ] (]) ... Hindi and Bhojpuri language and culture did not do anything for Jamshedpur. Bengalis and Bengali culture established Jamshedpur."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|699156359|16:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

== ] reported by ] (Result:Blocked 60 h) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|Colin Patterson (biologist)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Kanbei85}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|699193681|21:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Restoring inappropriately removed resource link. Undid revision 699173006 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699172445|18:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "This reference was censored by a biased editor-- restored. Why they would allow ARN but disallow CMI is unknown."
# {{diff2|699168211|18:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 699057980 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|699031660|20:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Added relevant reference , one word changed."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Blocked before for edit warring (hm, hadn't noticed that was by me), also edit warring at {{la|Creationism}}. Calling editors "dishonest" in edit summaries. ] ] 21:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently freedom of speech doesn't apply to editor's summaries of why they make changes here on Misplaced Pages. Editors who censor people and apply double standards to what types of citations are allowed in articles are most certainly dishonest. Accusing someone of edit warring for simply attempting to keep a legitimate edit from being overrun by a mob of trolls who can give no good/truthful reasons for why they are reverting my edits is ALSO dishonest. In short, if you wish to exert the power of censorship to maintain the status quo of massively biased articles here on Misplaced Pages (at least when it pertains to creationism and other similarly-controversial topics), then obviously there's nothing I can do to stop you. But that won't change the facts, nor will it change the fact that you are assuming personal responsibility for part of why Misplaced Pages is giving such a twisted and unbalanced perspective in so many places. My edits have all been legitimate.

] (]) 22:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

: '''Result''': User blocked for 60h. They were previously blocked for edit warring and do not seem to acknowledge that their five reverts is not an optimal way of operation.--] (]) 22:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|United States Chess Federation}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|184.100.184.73}} {{userlinks|184.100.252.129}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

<u>Comments:</u>IP editor just reverts without discussing. Semi-protection requested. ] (]) 00:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC) <br />

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

Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Vandalism

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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


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

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

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

    I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--BubbleBabis (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating hoaxes, adding off-topic information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368#User BubbleBabis. Aneirinn (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Categories: