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

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

Revision as of 15:14, 27 March 2016 editSheriffIsInTown (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,534 edits ReTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:39, 9 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,982 editsm Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive491) (bot
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 = ~~311~~		\|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' 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: ) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Jerry121}}

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

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- 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:

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Attempts to resolve this I did first through the edit summary, then I tried to talk to this user, either on the article talk page or user talk page, but so far completely ignored. -- '''<font color="#199199">]</font>'''  <big>]</big> 04:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Blocked~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|~~Oath~~ ~~Keepers~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|~~Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	# {{diff2\|710959972\|03:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 710959074 by ] (]) Add more sources for wording in question, fix one word - "discredited" is more neutral than "scam.""
	# {{diff2\|710958002\|02:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 710823375 by ] (]) It's a valid news source."
	# {{diff2\|710804565\|03:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)}} "undo well meaning but inappropriate removal of sourced material to a ] source."
	#
	#
	#

	;Diffs of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ ~~/ 3RR warning~~:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Warned .		# (31 December 2024)
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|710606218\|23:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* NPOV */ ?"
	# {{diff2\|710637523\|03:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Scare quotes */ re"

	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	Editor went quiet while the ] was up, but went back to reverting as soon as it was archived. He is now reverting my edits on sight regardless of content: the most recent revert removed such uncontroversial information as filling in cite web templates, despite my breaking those into separate edits to avoid collateral damage. As before, no 3RR violation, but the ongoing pattern of disruption is clear. ] (]) 00:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
	:. ] (]) 00:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' This is another round of VQuakr's dishonest and bad faith harassment tactics, nothing more. It has no basis in facts. ] (]) 00:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' ] is blocked 48 hours for personal attacks, such as the above charge of 'dishonest and bad faith harassment tactics.' On his talk page, he manages to get the word 'harassment' into almost every edit summary. There are people who disagree with him, but there is little evidence he is being harassed. Notice that accusations of harassment ]. On 25 January he stated he was leaving . On 23 January he was advised by an administrator, ], that ] (]) 00:45, 26 March 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 />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|John Wilson Bengough}} <br />
			:I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Eric Corbett}}
			::{{AN3\|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* Changing "though" to "although":
	#
	#
	#
	#
	# and then after being shown what and ''Fowler's'' have to say, he does it again with the comment

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- 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\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
	<!-- 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 a content dispute—Corbett's intent is to fight and avoid discussion.

	<u>Comments:</u~~> <br /~~>		<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	This is not a difference of opinions—this is sheer trolling on Corbett's part after he badly lost a dispute between himself and a large number of other editors at ] and ], which is what ''"Or do we need an RfC?"'' refers to—he immediately headed to ] to trumpet what a "bad writer" I am (neglecting to mention I had to revert almost the whole botched "copyedit"). He targeted ] because I had had it promted to GA that very day. Corbett's motivation is not to improve the article (which he hasn't—he's actually in punctuation and semantics), it's to fight, fight, fight to the very end. You can expect him to show up here with some line about "not understanding basic punctuation", but don't be fooled—this is not about punctuation. It's a vendetta. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 22:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	:Not commenting on the merits, but I've blocked the filer for 72 hours for ]. ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 01:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
	::Block lifted, under the assumption that irritation drove a reasonable editor to sub-optimal edits. I believe the above could be resolved amicably if the parties talked to each other rather than at each other. ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 10:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Comment''': ''(I was drawn here by a request left on my user talk page by an uninvolved administrator)''
			#
	* Commenting on the merits: I copy edited the article prior to this. I would be happy to learn something new about grammar and punctuation, however the diffs above clearly show incorrect usage of both. Filer is correct in their assessment: The edits do not improve the article. Having said that ...
			#
	* Commenting on the behavior: This is likely a display of old animosity shared by both parties against each other that probably goes back a while, a result of repeated attempts of each to humiliate the other with no regard for the maturity required to discuss the situation like adults. ''Regarding the behavior of the filer'': Administrators here rightfully blocked him for wasting administrator's time by taking the issue here prior to taking it to the article talk page. ''Regarding the behavior of the filer's opponent'': Suspect that his motivation was to retaliate against the filer for an older, unresolved dispute without regard for the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia article. ''Suggested behavior'': Unless both parties are happy to go on for years like this, I suggest that they 1) judiciously avoid each other for a period of at least six months, then 2) talk to each other on the article talk page of whatever article where they find themselves unavoidably working together. When that day occurs, they should start by finding common ground, areas where they happen to agree, then move on to amicably and respectfully discuss any areas where they do not agree. Do not resort to old behavior on that day. I am confident that both parties can find peace if this advice is followed. Best, ] (]) 00:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
			#
	** Sorry, but it's difficult for me to read this comment and not see "She shouldn't have worn that skirt" in it. I used strong language, and the discussion was personal on both sides, but that can't seriously be used to excuse persistent disruption of article space. The suggestion that a talk page discussion would have solved it is ludicrous (b) I've opened one, and Eric hasn't bothered to show up; (b) Eric's motivation was to disrupt, no tot improve the article; (b) Eric's contributions to the discussion at ] consisted virtually entirely of trying to keep the discussion off topic. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
			#
	**I'll have to correct {{U\|Prhartcom}}'s assumption - the block was issued following an escalation in tone far beyond the boundaries of vigorous debate. It cannot in any way be read as comment on the merits of filing this report. ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 10:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	***Thank-you, ], it was the correct decision for both reasons. A block of both would have been even more appropriate, as I believe the filer is correct in their assessment of the situation immediately above: The filer's opponent's motivation was to disrupt the encyclopedia to retaliate for the tone of this and likely many previous encounters. That tone is the core issue and is what actually needs to be resolved by the filer and his opponent. My suggested solution to do so that was requested by the uninvolved administrator still stands. Best, ] (]) 13:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
			he removed my warning for whatever reason
	***:I see you're a dab hand at making assumptions. What's wrong with examining the facts instead? ] ] 13:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
	****:Well if we are to stick to the facts then the fact is that there was edit warring. ] 15:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|List of WWE personnel}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Vjmlhds}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Previous version reverted to:
			Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
			*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
			:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
			*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
			*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
			*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
			*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
			*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
			*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
			*:
			*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
			*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			{{AN3\|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|711981870\|03:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 711981212 by ] (]): STOP NOW! (])"
	# {{diff2\|711981212\|03:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 711975760 by ] (]): If you want to commit Wiki suicide with your continuous disruptive eidting, fell free - my consicous is clear. (])"
	# {{diff\|oldid=711974267\|diff=711975760\|label=Consecutive edits made from 02:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC) to 02:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|711975593\|02:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)}} ""
	## {{diff2\|711975760\|02:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)}} "replacing unintended deletions."
	# {{diff2\|711970817\|01:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 711918106 by ] (]): ?Enough. (])"
	# {{diff2\|711896409\|15:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 711837448 by Originalchampion: Just stop...you are deliberately just trying to pick a fight...besides, I have references CLEARLY pointing out both Stephanie and Lana are considered as wrestlers...the truth is the truth. (])"
	# {{diff2\|711780565\|21:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 711733783 by ] (]): Just can't leave well enough alone. (])"
	# {{diff2\|711731254\|14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 711606104 by ] (]): Sourced reference says otherwise...some people just never learn. (])"
	# {{diff2\|711606104\|21:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 711449925 by ] (]): Sigh. (])"

			: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)
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|711982054\|03:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	5 further reverts beyond those reported above. - ] (]) 10:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*{{nao}} {{AN3\|n}}: Vjmlhds has been blocked for one week for edit warring. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px maroon">-- ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup></span> 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
			# {{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:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1268160425\|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1268160707\|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Research and Analysis Wing}}
			# {{diff2\|1268160586\|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|MBlaze Lightning}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Previous version reverted to:
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|712005975\|08:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 711998891 by ]: Please avoid ]. this section is about major operations not about what Pakistan claims day another day! (])"
	# {{diff2\|711998891\|07:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)}} "rm. It seems to me POV and ] And it is really not relevant in this section when it is just a claim by Pakistan which have no evidence whatsoever to back their claim."

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	User is already under 1PR restriction. He is now warring against three editors. ] (]) 10:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
	*'''COMMENT'''
	::Admins can see, I did only one revert on an article that is not covered by ARBIPA. In my first edit, I didn't reverted any user rather I only removed the UNDUE content. FLCC will you please stop creating irritation, annoyance and distress to me? It won't take more then a minute to check your and see who actually warring across multiple articles covered by ARBIPA (, . And Again, is covered under ARBIPA sanctions and FreeatlastChitchat that was imposed on him yesterday. This user also ] me on multiples articles. This user (FreeatlastChitchat) is probably one of the most disruptive editors I've ever seen to date. Checking his block log , and a will show what I mean. ] -] 10:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
	* Bear in mind that the majority of the AN/I filings were by ] who is now subject to an indefinite block. Can't see any wrongdoings on FLCC's behalf here, only that MBL has violated his 1RR restriction. I highly recommend a short block for the user being reported here. --] ] ] 11:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
	* Unfortunately, the policy pages do not make clear what counts as a "revert." Under 1RR, the definition becomes critical. I agree that reinstating an edit counts as a second "revert." But, without this being written down anywhere, we can't fault the editors for not knowing. I think it is best to let off the editor with a warning. - ] (]) 12:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' MBlaze Lightning should have read the warning properly. And we are not given any complete list of articles which comes under India-Pakistan-Afghanistan related articles. He assumed that ] is not under Arbitration. Me myself don't know which articles come under this arbitration, and why we have arbitration when we have administrators?

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	:Having said that the accusation of Wikihounding is justified. This user:FreeatlastChitchat had editing disputes with MBlazeLightning and he followed MBlaze in ], a page which Freeatlastchitchat '''never''' edited before MBlaze . . And this is not alone even AFD discussion for ], freeatlastChitchat . This guy is Wikihounding a user.] (]) 13:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
	:@ just following another edits is not hounding. As per policy "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, incidents, and arbitration cases.". You see from Rakhi Sawant page that MBL just removed a piece of information instead of tagging it or trying to find a source. I . Just how did it cause MBL's edits to be disrupted? ] (]) 13:35, 26 March 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.
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Gagauz people}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|احمد الليبي}} ()

			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)
	Previous version reverted to:

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	<!-- 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. -->
			:] 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)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			:: 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)
	<!-- 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 -->
			::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			::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) ==
	Also at 3RR on: '''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fayez al-Sarraj}}<br>
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	User notified:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			# {{diff2\|1268291574\|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
	New, ] user with a bad attitude and possible COI. When I first added a "welcome" template, along with a pov notification, to their talk page, I was told to "mind my own business" and accused of "patronizing", "spamming" and "trying to increase my edit count". User is also repeatedly changing sourced content. Despite numerous requests to add additional sources and/or discuss on article talk pages, or the user's talk page, this user has refused to engage, and just continues edit warring. - '']'' 12:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268272867\|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
			# {{diff2\|1268269093\|23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268248948\|21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	: This user (wolfchild) doesn't have a clue both in terms of good information about the subjects of the articles in question and in terms of the style/language that should best be used for writing the articles. And it was actually him who started the edit war deleting my corrections by reverting to older versions and everytime leaving needless comment in my talk page. I'm confident that any admin here will easily see which expression is better "the Balkan country of Bulgaria" or simply "Bulgaria" and which info is correct regarding the existence of two parallel governments in Libya, whether this started in 2011 or 2014. ] (]) 20:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
	:: For someone who claims to "know Misplaced Pages very well" (after 22 edits ''total''), your explanation is lacking. The first issue is about content. Admins don't decide content, neither do you, or I. Content is decided by ], hence the reason you need to propose your change on the talk page and seek support for it. The second issue is about sourcing. Your change was not supported by the attached source, meaning it was ]. You need to add a new ] to support your change. You also need to discuss these issues on the article talk pages, but you absolutely refused. In both cases, the one thing you don't do is edit war, but you did. - '']'' 04:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Acetone peroxide}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Boghog}}

			:'''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)
	<!-- 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. -->

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> The ''war'' began on ] where User:Boghog made an edit request. In the request they noted that a live article was to be seen as a demonstration of a sandboxed alteration of the template in question. I returned the article to its ''correct'' condition, and asked the user to not do tests/demonstrations in live articles. They have since reverted my own attempts to correct the issue, and ]'s. There appears to be a content dispute in the same article which is mixed up in the diffs. After the second revert, User:Boghog created ] with creation summary ''"created temporary template that is needed to resolve edit dispute"''. I have tagged it for deletion per {{tl\|Db-t3}}. User:Boghog ] (whilst I was dealing with other concerns) after my second attempt to ''correct'' the article, which was a compromise, and found my compromise undone soon after. The conversation on my talk page about this issue is continuing as I compose this report; I am in two minds about continuing, but an article with two simultaneous content disputes involving the same editor, and what feels like an unreasonable bent to get their own way by any means, should be examined.<br />

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	P.S. Sorry if I've done the diffs wrong. ] 22:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268310745\|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
			# {{diff2\|1268310470\|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268310062\|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268308804\|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
			# {{diff2\|1268308036\|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Additionally''': I should note that the ''content dispute'' which appeared to be ongoing at the article, turns out to be no more than an RfC. ] 13:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


	* I am sorry, but this is not an edit war, but a misunderstanding. I respectfully tried to engage in a discussion ], but with limited success. ] (]) 22:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* Point of order: At most, I have reverted three times and hence I have not violated ]. The was a modification to my own edit. ] (]) 22:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
	:: Regarding 3RR: I must admit to making a mistake there; '''more than 3''' not '''3''' is something I missed. However, I didn't miss that not breaking this ''rule'' isn't an excuse, or that a report isn't valid without this ''rule'' being broken. I prefer to allow admin to review this report as it was made, and therefore will not be defending my position repeatedly. I of course will answer any questions to the best of my ability to assist. ] 23:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''List of expeditions of Muhammad:''' {{pagelinks\|<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

			# {{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:'''

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

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

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

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Research and Analysis Wing}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|SheriffIsInTown}}

			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)
	;Previous version reverted to:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|712116691\|01:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Revert removal of sourced content, this is very much due, as I said you can include Indian denial as well. Major operations are not just the successful ones. Unsuccessful ones can be major as well. This could have been at the level of Bangladesh."
	# {{diff\|oldid=711950068\|diff=711955160\|label=Consecutive edits made from 23:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC) to 23:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|711952810\|23:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Dunya News is an independent news organization and a ], it's privately owned and not run by state. The state run organizations in Pakistan are Pakistan Television and Radio Pakistan. You cannot hundreds of Pakistani channels as state run just beca"
	## {{diff2\|711955160\|23:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Major operations */Correction"
	# {{diff2\|711947843\|22:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Wuddeva Wuddeva, you can include Indian denial as well but don't remove sourced information, this is no an Indian website as well where anything and everything negative to India will be censored"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}
	# {{diff2\|711999877\|07:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Your recent edits */ new section"

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


			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			#: "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:'''
	I have no other option but to report this user for persistent ] and POV-pushing and zero tendency to discuss at talk on contentious matter. The user was warned of 3RR but instead of discussing the matter at talk, the user kept on doing blatant reverts. ] -] 06:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
	*'''Boomerang'''. Reverting 100% clear vandalism is exempt from 3PR. This appears to be a knee jerk reaction (albeit too late) to cover up MBL's violation of 1PR and his blatant violation of ] policy. The removing well sourced sections that are written in a neutral NPOV tone without any rationale is vandalism ans reverting vandalism is exempt from 3PR. MBL has been on a campaign to remove this section and has gone as far as to AFD the page of this person. I will be recommending a Boomerang here. As I have already reported MBL for violating his 1PR restriction perhaps the closing admin will be kind enough to give him a short block and close both threads. ] (]) 13:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*'''Comment'''- {{ping\|MBlaze Lightning}} did the right thing by not editing the page ] after this edit . ] (]) 14:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
			Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
	*'''Comment''': I don't see any 3RR violation there. There were intermediate edits in between and apparently MBlaze Lightning reverted all of them. There was clear vandalism by an internationally known hackers and Internet terrorists network based in Mumbai belonging to this same very agency. A clear conflict of interest as well. See the statement by international anti-hacker alliance about that network . Meanwhile, MBL has been displaying battleground behavior and Wikihounding editors to start edit-wars by removing anything he considers anti-Indian and this type of battleground behavior coupled with political agenda is very dangerous for integrity of this encyclopedia. ] \| ] \| 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

			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 ] 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 ].

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

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

Latest revision as of 15:39, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.

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

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

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

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

"I "tried to delete me reporting them""

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

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

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

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

The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level

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

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

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

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

I notify the user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

User:Shecose reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: )

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:

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."
08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268345471 by CNMall41 (talk) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
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)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

04:36 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: New Section"
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)

Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: