Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:27, 24 August 2017 editAlex Shih (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,202 edits →User:Hillbillyholiday reported by User:AlexEng (Result: ): blocked for 24 hours← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,733 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef }}{{/Header}}] ] <!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 348 |counter = 491
|algo = old(36h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f |key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) == == ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
{{Archive top
|result = Closing this as the discussion should remain in one place (IE the talkpage). –]<sup>]</sup> 16:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
|status = none }}
;Page: {{pagelinks|Emily Beecham}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|VenomousConcept}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
;Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|796372984|12:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|795859385|23:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|795857676|23:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|795339573|17:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|794407741|22:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|794382810|18:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|794365747|16:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|795861365|00:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|789766531|13:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|789767267|13:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|789768596|13:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|796320656|02:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>


User has been edit warring and keeps inserting an image on the ] article, I had the article protected in an attempt to force them to go to the talkpage - It worked however now the protection's up they've ignored the talkpage and have again inserted the image again, Thanks –]<sup>]</sup> 17:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:Although the edit warring hasn't been constant they've still ignored the talkpage nonetheless (except when I got the article protected), I don't believe I was edit warring as I ''did'' go to the talkpage nearly a month ago, I did state this morning an editor or myself could start an RFC which unfortunately seems to have gone ignored, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 17:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


::I'm having a look through OTRS now trying to see if the relevant permission for the new image has been supplied. Although I ''personally'' think the earlier image is better, if it keeps Ms Beecham happy and complies with our image licensing policies, then I'd rather go with that just to keep the peace. ] ] ] 17:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Hi Ritchie, I'm not trying to argue or cause any crap but shouldn't we keep an image we/editors are happy with not Ms Beecham herself ?, FWIW I'm sick of this as the next person but for me I'm trying (atleast in my eyes) to do what's best for the project, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 17:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I think it's just a case of doing whatever is the least disruption. I found an OTRS ticket about the new image, but it's been rejected and the ticket closed, so it should probably be deleted. ] ] ] 17:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Ah okay well thanks for kindly dealing with it, Would it be best if this gets indef-protected or atleast Pending Changes applied as me thinks this is not gonna stop anytime soon, Thanks again for dealing with this, –]<sup>]</sup> 18:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::I've speedy deleted the other image under F3 (it was previously deleted under F7 but I think a rejected claim of fair use is closer to this one), so it's up to VenomousConcept to come up with a ''genuinely'' free image that clears OTRS. ] ] ] 18:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::I wrote a whole paragraph responding to this and then the website lost it. Here we go again... I don't think that I'm guilty of edit warring any more than Davey2010. I discussed it on the talkpage, but received no response. I understand that Davey2010 is just trying to abide by Misplaced Pages guidelines, and I respect that. My respect lessens somewhat when he comes up with imaginary rules like 'Misplaced Pages pages need to feature pictures of someone at an event'. Misplaced Pages: Manual of Style/Images states that 'A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people.' that's all. I fully appreciate that Misplaced Pages does not exist to please the subjects of articles, however I don't think replacing one free image with another should be a problem. Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Article subjects encourages people to do just that. Above Davey2010 states that we should use 'an image we/editors are happy with' and seems to just be referring to himself and ignoring the wishes of myself and the multiple other editors who have tried to change it. If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about consensus, then I don't think it's fair that one editor should be allowed to block the attempts of multiple other editors to improve a page. I see that my image has been deleted, I don't know why as I thought it had the right licence and was assured by other Wikipedians that it did. If someone could explain that to me I would appreciate it. Finally, as according to Misplaced Pages: Manual of Style/Images - 'Lead images are not required', I would suggest that the best way to resolve the dispute would be to remove the image until an image that everyone is happy with can be found.] (]) 23:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::"''I wrote a whole paragraph responding to this and then the website lost it''" - Well with all respect you could've readded it, Many newbies here upload what I would consider promotional shots (exactly like the one you were proposing) - Images here should be natural that's the best way I can describe it,
::::::::Nope - A few editors on the talkpage and Ritchie above has expressed disapproval with the image so no I'm not going against anyones wishes - if the majority of people (inc Ritchie) said "Yes the other image is fine" then I would've left it at that however the only people so far that actually support this are more or less newbies who have come here, Added the image, and then buggered off,
::::::::You cannot upload images and claim they're yours - Doesn't work like that,
::::::::No need to change the image - Everyone is happy with the one that's there (except Emily) - We don't remove images ''just because the subject doesn't like them'' - If an image is free and is suitable for an encyclopedic article then we use it, If it's not then we don't.
::::::::As for me edit warring - I disagree I've told various editors to go to the talkpage and each time I've hit a brick wall with every single one,
::::::::Anyway back on topic the image should stay until she can be photographed in a natural way and one that is suitable for this project. –]<sup>]</sup> 23:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::For your information, the image was taken by a friend of Emily's. I don't see how it can be considered 'promotional' in any way. It wasn't taken by a professional photographer or a PR company. I don't consider myself a "newbie". I have been on this website for some time. You seem to be implying that your opinions carry more weight than "newbies", which I find quite pretentious. I haven't found any evidence in Misplaced Pages guidelines to back up your assertion that images have to be 'natural' or 'at an event'. If you could provide some I'll read it. As far as I can see the image I tried to use was just as valid as yours. Emily sent the licence. I don't see what's wrong with uploading something on someone else's behalf if it has the right licence. I've already stated that I understand that Misplaced Pages isn't about pleasing the subjects of articles. I think having a better picture would improve the page regardless. I thought the image I used had the right licence and met Misplaced Pages guidelines. I will try to find another image that meets Misplaced Pages guidelines and the approval of the community (which in this case seems to just be you). However I don't think it's right that one editor should be allowed to dictate what happens on a page any more than the subject does. That is not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Pages should be allowed to evolve and improve.] (]) 13:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm not going to fully reply as this has dragged on long enough so I'll just say this - If you upload an image (and it passes OTRS) then I would strongly recommend you start an ] on the talkpage, If you add any image to that article even once I'll come straight back here and it would be very likely you would be blocked,
::::::::::I understand you may not agree with me and that's fine but instead of everyone adding images and edit warring we need to all come to some sort of agreement or atleast compromise on the talkpage - As we realistically haven't come to any agreement getting outside opinions and making editors choose which image would be better IMHO so as I said if you upload an image (and it passes OTRS) then start an RFC, Thanks & Happy editing. –]<sup>]</sup> 15:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::At this rate, I might as well ask Ms Beecham to pop down to the studio and I'll take a photo of her (and since a part of my RL job involves somebody running acting classes for beginners, it's not as far-fetched crazy as you might imagine). ] ] ] 15:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::As Davey2010 didn't provide any evidence of his 'Pages have to feature images of someone at an event rule', I thought I'd provide some that directly contradict that. Here's one that presumably Davey2010 would find 'promotional', yet it is allowed - ]. Here are several of people not at events - ], ], ], ]. This one is no different to the one I tried to use - ]. ] (]) 14:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Warned. SInce the image in question has been deleted this particular edit war seems to be over. If ] makes any further image changes that don't have consensus they are risking a block. ] (]) 00:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Irshad Hussain}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Sahilchemist.abbas}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
;Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|796584927|21:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 796584749 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|796584676|21:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Saqib there is already a small amount of data about Pakistani personalities, I humbly request dont delet. the data is quite original and it should be there on wiki. Undid 796580263 by ] (])"


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# (31 December 2024)
# {{diff2|796584795|21:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]. (])"
# (6 January 2024)
# {{diff2|796585315|21:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]. (])"
# (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:




'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>


<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 />
This newbie user apparently in the mood of edit warring.. the user suspected of socking is keep adding the unsourced and promotional material to a page currently nominated for deletion.. ] (]) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
: '''User to Admin Suggestion''': I wouldn't take action on this report, for two reasons:
: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)
# The reported has not breached 3RR as such.
::{{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)
# The two editors should really discuss the information that they differ on.
:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
: To be quite honest, there is no real signs of disruption with the article, and the reportee should have handled this matter better. If there is a sock puppet investigation going on, the reportee could highlight this, but there is no real issues here for a block, unless the reported causes more problems. If anything, the page should not be touched until after the deletion discussion on it is completed. ] (]) 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
::], there is no need to wait till the AfD finishes. This chemist is obviously notable and the AfD is likely to confirm that. The article was created by ] who has been reported here. The idea of creating this article is fine, but his mistake is to keep reverting against the experienced people who are trying to bring the article up to standards. For example, Sahilchemist.abbas made which succeeded only in breaking the intended link to our existing article on ]. He also violated copyright in the original article creation and another admin has fixed this up. that is added to advertise AfDs to various projects. To avoid a block, I recommend that Sahilchemist.abbas agree not to edit the article any more for at least a week. ] (]) 02:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
Many thanks for improving the content and quality of the article. I tried my best to mention only reliable and authentic data, and definitely supported my arguments with citations including the National websites of Pakistan. And I added "Professor" it was right, but what happened wikipedia automatically fetched some wrong info, some other persone, i was mentioning (]. And this version was quite fine and well cited version (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Irshad_Hussain&oldid=796622065 ) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Result:''' ] is '''warned''' they may be blocked if they revert again at ]. Sabotaging the improvement of your own newly-created article is not a smart move. If any of our procedures are unfamiliar to you, you can ask an experienced person. ] (]) 01:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Doklam}}<br />{{pagelinks|2017 China–India border standoff}}<br />{{pagelinks|Gipmochi}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kautilya3}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{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:'''
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796403989&oldid=796349186
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796318312&oldid=796307961


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gipmochi&diff=795903679&oldid=795901534
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
Previous version reverted to:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796573789&oldid=796573668


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796444471&oldid=796443221
#
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gipmochi&diff=795971706&oldid=795970985


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Diffs of the user's reverts:
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))
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796431066&oldid=796429011
*'''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 .
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796429011&oldid=796425725
: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)
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796425725&oldid=796405783
*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=795815437&oldid=795814112
*:“ 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”
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=795790828&oldid=795753596
*: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.
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=795735751&oldid=795735269
*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=795724364&oldid=795724095
*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796444471&oldid=796443221
*:“ 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”
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796375690&oldid=796318312
*: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?
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=795906080&oldid=795904731
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=795896729&oldid=795892307 *:
*: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.
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gipmochi&diff=795971706&oldid=795970985
*: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)
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=China%E2%80%93India_relations&diff=795729151&oldid=795720810
*::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)
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=China%E2%80%93India_relations&diff=795963719&oldid=795889123


{{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)


: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)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Yes, I did try to resolve the issue with Kautilya3.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Please see my communications with him on the following talk pages for topics on ], ]:
# {{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:'''
https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kautilya3
# {{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:'''
https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Adam4math
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
But he removed some of my warnings on his edit war. They can be recovered from the histories of these pages.
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''




'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Dear wiki Administrators:
#


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
] has been engaging in edit war on the following articles:


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
https://en.wikipedia.org/Doklam


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff
https://en.wikipedia.org/Gipmochi


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.


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
] has constantly removed and/or changed my edits to distort the truth contained in these three articles.


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)
Some other times I could not figure out exactly what he did to my edits. But after he skillfully modified my work, links to some references magically disappeared or changed so that the reader is either not able to find the link, or get mis-directed, or taking many clicks to find the correct link.


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
For instance, in the article on ], for the Revision as of 16:20, 20 August 2017 for the following


:]
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796403989&oldid=796349186
:"""
:] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-delete3 --> ] (]) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ] (]) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:: They're up to it again ] (]) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:""" ] (]) 01:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


: NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ] (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. ] (]) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
reference linking to the important text at the end of the article directed correctly to the official TV link at
::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
::Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
::Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
::I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
::3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with ] (]) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}}. This report is a mess. ] (]) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment ] (]) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{re|NotQualified}} Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--] (]) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. ] (]) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
*::::# I add templates to an article with faults
*::::# The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
*::::# I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
*::::# They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
*::::# I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
*::::# Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
*::::# I notify the user
*::::# I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
*::::# Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
*::::# You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
*::::I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
*:::::That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
*:::::I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
*:::::I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. ] (]) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSr0w6hD2Bg


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
However, after ] made some magic changes, the link does not work any more at


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796431066&oldid=796429011


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Also, he changed the short and crystal clear statement here into an vague one to lead the reader into confusion about the dispute at Doklam:
from "China asserts that this is Chinese territory based on the 1890 ] and that border inhabitants of Bhutan needed to pay tax to the Chinese side in order to herd in the area before 1960 with tax receipts still in its ] Archives"
to "it is also claimed by China".


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
I am a US citizen interested in truth, but I only told ] that I am a third party other than India and China and can see the picture better than him who is a party in the disput with China on ]. I have tried to talk with him and educate him on how to be truthful on these topics. But he constantly harrass me with weird statements, and misuses wikipedia policies to bully me. I noticed that ] behaves the same way in other wiki articles, such as those on ]. ] needs to be blocked permanently for his behaviors.
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
# {{diff2|1268272867|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
# {{diff2|1268269093|23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268248948|21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Other editors in India also destroyed my effort to tell the truth. Form the histories on these articles, it is very easy to tell that these articles are overwhelmed by editors on in India. As a result, they have hijacked these articles and do not allow complete story be told.
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


I did try to resolve the issue with ]. '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Please see my communications with him on the his talk page and mine on ], ] below:


:'''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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kautilya3


:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Adam4math
: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) ==
But he removed some of my warnings on his edit war. They can be recovered from the histories of these pages.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
Knowing that I will be a lamb among wolves by bringing any issue unfavorable to India to the talk pages on these articles, and pretending to be following Misplaced Pages's policy, ] constantly urged (pestered) me to take my issue to the article talk page. But it will only waste my time under the current wikipedia policy, because it is overwhelmed/populated by editors in India which is a party in the dispute, with more than one billion people inundated by the media so most are biased on the dispute on Doklam. I will not be their match discussing the issue on that page to get a consensus. Since I have work, family etc to take care, I do not have that kind of time, having already sacrificed several full days working on the related articles. The current Misplaced Pages policy on hotly disputed topics needs to change. If it were a non-controversial issue, I would be glad to bring this (and all the articles related to the current dispute on Doklam) to the talk page.


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
I took more than two days to figure out how to report edit warring to wiki Administrators, and several days for me to do my edits on these articles, because as I'm not good at computer skills and my vision is poor. ] destroyed my hard work, and Misplaced Pages readers all over the world are being mislead in his one sided stories on the dispute.


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
With more than three times more population than the rest of the English speaking population, India's hijacking these wiki articles in order to portrays its narratives as truth and not allowing complete story be told must be stopped.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
People all over the world have used Misplaced Pages as a trusted source. I understand that ARBIPA sanctions policy is in place. However Misplaced Pages should be able to better this. In order to preserve its integrity and continue to develop it as a trusted source, in order to avoid constant unnecessary edit wars and disruptions related to these three articles on the current standoff between China and India, I suggest Misplaced Pages adapt a Court Like Policy similar to the following.
# {{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:'''
(1) Block all editors with computer ip addresses in both India and China, though I do not see obvious disruptions on these articles from China since Misplaced Pages is blocked therein according to https://en.wikipedia.org/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_China


(2) Create a page that allow the disputed parties to submit their supporting documents, clearly labelled and organized.
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


(3) Editors from the rest of the world will serve as a Court Judges and work together to produce these articles, not limiting their resources from those submitted by China and India in (2) above.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
When two parties have a dispute in a court, it is obvious that the parties themselves cannot be judges on their case. Misplaced Pages's current policy in dealing with disputed issues are exactly letting disputed parties to be judges, and in the case of articles on ], letting India alone to be the judge since it has hijacked these articles.


Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages may consider to adapt similar policies for other disputed topics, but the current standoff at Doklam should take priority to at the least have an ad hoc policy similar to the above, as the conflict could very likely lead to a devastatting second round of India's China War, as Neville Maxwell predicted.
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
I hope Misplaced Pages will change its policy so that all wiki editors will have enjoyable experience in editing its articles in a friendly collaborative environment, rather than an adversarial or even chaotic one.


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
I look forward to receiving your decision on permanently blocking ] and your respond on my proposal to adapt a Court Like Policy on the articles related to current standoff between China and India.


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
] (]) 05:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:'''Comment''': I look at what is said above about changing policies, but this all sounds like politics to me, and I don't think such a change would yield anything useful. It's far better to get disputes sorted out between Wikipedians who are involved in them, rather than a vast 3rd party, since it feels unlikely that would solve the issue. ] (]) 07:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
:'''Response''': Indeed, I believe it is a content dispute rather than a conduct issue. The <s>editor</s> reportee was recently for edit-warring, and when he retuned he started giving me ]y edit-warring notices <s></s> , for every edit. Few of them are "reverts". Whatever reverts I might have done are policy-based and carefully considered and never crossed 3RR. {{U|RegentsPark}} is continuing to give to the <s>editor</s> reportee. -- ] (]) 08:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
:: {{Ping|Kautilya3}} Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? If you are referring to the reportee, surely that should be in your response? ] (]) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
:'''Comment''':Kautilya3 shouldn't be coming close to edit warring already. K3 came close to breaking 3RR already. This is clearly a disruptive user. Evenif not breaking the letter, it is breaking the spirit of wikipedia collaboration. # # # He has been warned previously: ] (]) 09:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
::Who's sock are you? &mdash;]<sup>]</sup> 15:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


: '''User to Admin Suggestion''': I will not be taking sides, but I do think that there is evidence here that the reportee is not acting in a civil manner at all, and seems to be directing a personal attack against the reported because of disagreements over certain information that the pair are in dispute upon. To actually ask for them to be indef blocked and request policy changes to block people of another nationality from making edits or being able to sort out disputes in a civilized manner is totally unacceptable. This encyclopedia is worked on by many users; yes, we have problems by some who are disruptive purely and not constructive, but those who get into disputes who realise their behaviour is wrong and are willing to settle manners calmly and rationally, with a good discussion, should not be stopped from doing so because of their nationality, their race, and their beliefs (political, religious, etc.). Only for being disruptive, uncivilised, and having no interest whatsoever to constructing articles, amending them and so forth, like other respectable editors.
: As for the other user, the reported, I think a simple warning should suffice, as they clearly do not intend to really edit war; they've been struggling with a user who is just being disruptive against them. ] (]) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
:*'''Declined:''' ], See the instructions at top of this board for how to submit an edit-warring report. If you have a disagreement with Misplaced Pages policy, belongs elsewhere. Neither Kautilya3 nor any administrator are in a position to grant what you are requesting:
:::{{talkquote|Taking this to the article talk page will only waste my time under the current wikipedia policy, because it is overwhelmed/populated by editors in India which is a party in the dispute, with more than one billion people inundated by the media so most are biased on the dispute on Doklam. I will not be their match discussing the issue on that page to get a consensus. Since I have work, family etc to take care, I do not have that kind of time. The current wikipedia policy on hotly disputed topics needs to change as I told you before.}} ] (]) 14:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Malaysia national under-23 football team}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|14.187.117.137}}


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


Also note the ] (]) 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 ] 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: {{diff|Malaysia national under-23 football team|prev|796689264}}
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That is because {{u|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{u|Shecose}}, {{tqq|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|Malaysia national under-23 football team|prev|796519256}}
# {{diff|Malaysia national under-23 football team|prev|796641367}}
# {{diff|Malaysia national under-23 football team|prev|796661048}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# "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: {{diff|User talk:14.187.117.137|prev|796644469}}


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
#: "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: {{diff|User talk:14.187.117.137|prev|796587448}} '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# "Lady Saso: New Section"
# "Lady Saso: Reply"


<u>Comments:</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
IP editor inappropriately re-adding ] to ] without providing the ] required by ]. The same IP has also been adding/re-adding other similar images to various national team articles without providing the necessary rnon-free use rationales, including at least one case where the re-added image was previously removed as the result of ]. The IP may also be editing as IP 14.187.210.94.


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.
Edit sums such as ] were left explaining why the file was removed and user talk page warnings about non-free image use and 3RR were also left. The editor, however, has continued on as before without making any attempt to explain how the particular use of the file satisfies ]. I realize non-free content can be tricky and that the IP has only been editing for a day, but simply re-adding such files after they have been removed for policy reasons is starting to get a bit disruptive and being new is not really a reason to edit war. -- ] (]) 14:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)<br />
*'''Comment''': The IP hasn't re-added the aforementioned file since it was last removed. In addition, admin {{u|EdJohnston}} has added a warning to the IP's user talk. At this point, even a short block would probably be more punitive than preventive, so perhaps no further action is needed at this time. If the image re-adding starts up again, then maybe then a block will be needed. -- ] (]) 00:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
'''Result:''' The IP is warned. All editors are expected to follow our image-use policy. ] (]) 00:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


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


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.
;Page: {{pagelinks|Dhananjoy Chatterjee}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Keepfaithintruths}}


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 ].
;Previous version reverted to:


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|796847390|11:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}} "FYI: The movie Dhanajoy is a work of fiction, not based on the book you mentioned. Go and watch the movie first. Do not put inaccurate information, whoever you are. Disclose your information and then we can take the appropriate steps."
# {{diff2|796834426|09:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Correction of inaccurate editing by "Godric on Leave". Godric on Leave you better spend some time to familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. This has been generated in consultation with Software Engineer of Wikimedia Foundation."
# {{diff2|796685029|13:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Correction of misleading and erroneous editing by "Winged Blades of Godric"."


] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
# {{diff2|796847497|11:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|796847957|12:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}} "/* August 2017 */"
# {{diff2|796847977|12:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}} "/* August 2017 */"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Also likely has made an edit under the username Stopstupidactivity. I don't believe an attempt at discussion would be successful given their edit summaries. ] (]) 12:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

And another edit under yet another username: ] (]) 12:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

*{{AN3|blocked| indef}} on all three accounts. ]] 12:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Chios_Mastiha}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|NewYorkActuary}}



Previous version reverted to:


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



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

: '''User to Admin Suggestion''': From what I can see in the article's history log, it looks like the reported wished for the reportee to go to the article's talk page to discuss the dramatic changes they made. It can be seen here that the reported wanted to discuss about the changes being made, as seen in the history, but the reportee does not seen interested in doing so at all, and there is a concern over their conduct and behavior in regards to a move discussion of the article within it's ]. I think the reportee may need to be advised about their behavior in general, as I don't think the reported has shown any signs whatsoever of conducting an edit war. ] (]) 15:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
:: Just to add to my above comment, I just checked the ], and it seems they got warned for Edit Warring themselves, and also for attacking other editors on the article's talk page. I don't believe their report holds any merit, upon examining this. In fact, I more inclined to believe that they are being disruptive after seeing their talk page, not the reported. ] (]) 17:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Reporter is now sort-of discussing the changes on the article talk page. ] ] 19:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
:::: {{Ping|pepperbeast}}Erm... He's not done so in a while. To be quite honest, I think the IP who wrote the response you stated was Uncivil, sounded like him, from the way it was written out. Were you aware that the reportee failed to notify NewYorkActuary that they had been reported here? ] (]) 19:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::No, I wasn't aware that ] hadn't been notified. Yes, I'm quite sure that the rude non-signing IP-User is the same ], since the "discussion" is pretty much one continuous stream of drama. ] ] 20:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
::::: {{Ping|pepperbeast}} Well I had to let NewYorkActuary know of this. And I honestly think that this report shouldn't have been made, to be honest. Chem-is-try7, to me, just didn't seem interested in discussing matters at all. In all honesty, after looking over the article's history, and the article's talk page, I think this individual is being disruptive and doing POV edits that clearly don't adhere to Misplaced Pages's policy. The sooner this report can be dealt with, and an admin sees this, the better for all that it be closed. I mean, he's really showing bad behaviour by not settling the matter with a discussion with NewYorkActuary. ] (]) 20:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::: {{Ping|GUtt01|pepperbeast|NewYorkActuary|}} Actually, NewYorkActuary threaded to report me if I don't change back the content https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Chem-is-try7 so I had enough and report him first... My temper against unrelated to the subject, non-degree individuals that have opinion on the subject is very (very) sort... When someone saying "The EU legislation -which is actually worldwide- doesn't matter here in wikipedia or doen't matter how Greeks call it this is EN wiki" or "lets leave the page without editing because you remove 5000 words and added only 400 back" it's really frustrating not to answer... and let's face it... if someone says "the world is flat" its really hard not to answer... The administrator has to judge the quality of edit I've did (ALL MENTIONED before in every at the "Edit Summary" if diffs and NewYorkActuary keep reverting them, not partially, not a paragraph but THE WHOLE THING... thats seems edit war to me) not NOT how the users must behave eachother is a thing called "SUBJECTIVITY". ] (]) 21:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
:: {{Ping|Chem-is-try7}} And here in, lies the rub - I have seen issues that seem more concerning about your behavior than NewYorkActuary. He wasn't threatening, he was warning you about your behavior, and was also trying to get you to discuss the rather substantial removal of information. There is already no consensus over the move you put in, and quite frankly, you need to discuss with editors about any information that is in dispute, rather than go ahead with removing it before someone can suggest other ways to deal with the information. I also don't approve of what you responded with on your user talk page, in particular, you saying this:
<blockquote>"If someone reverts by stupidity a nicely edited content then by default is stupid and I should treat him as such... (or anyone that is support by)"</blockquote>
::To me, that is aggressive, and not the behavior an editor should make out. If someone does make the stupid mistake of reverting something that was nicely edited to something that is incorrect, I would politely tell them this is wrong, and advise them to be careful. I would not even attack others that supported someone for doing this. Honestly... This kind of behavior degrades how Misplaced Pages is for other editors. ] (]) 21:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
:: {{Ping|GUtt01}} Please conduct a simple evaluation of my work. Go to the two edits and see which one has the logical structure and MORE importantly RELEVANT TITLE (my title constantly was changed by NewYorkActuary!!). If you want to judge me for my manner and not my knowledge on the subject then do your worst sir... ] (]) 21:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
:: {{Ping|Chem-is-try7}} Please do not drag me into your dispute with the reported. As far as I am concerned, you clearly are conducting POV edits, with the manner of the response you gave. You can't change an article in this manner, even its title, without getting consensus first on the matter. I have said all I will say now. And if someone does do something in regards to your manner, it will be an admin, not me. ] (]) 21:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
:{{AN3|p}}– 5 days. Try to get agreement about the issues on the article talk page. Attempting to enforce the EU's product naming conventions in Misplaced Pages articles seems unlikely to succeed. See ] for the rules that we do follow. ], on a user talk page may have consequences, so please watch your language. ] (]) 22:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Michael Michael}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Hillbillyholiday}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|796925870|21:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Good grief! ]"
# {{diff2|796924425|21:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by ] (]) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
# {{diff2|796922143|21:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by ] (]) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
# {{diff2|796883183|16:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by ] (]) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
# {{diff2|796878789|16:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by ] (]) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
# {{diff2|796847968|12:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by ] (]) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
# {{diff2|796844040|11:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by ] (]) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
#

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
#
#]
;<u>Comments:</u>

User about exceeding 3RR. User has not used ] as a justification in any edit summaries as required by policy. User has not responded to a on the article talk page despite this in a revert. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 22:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

*{{AN3|note}}: A ] was filed just four days ago and there is an ] about the user. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;(]) 22:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
::The previous report was closed with the reasoning that the user has gone on a wiki-break and therefore the report is moot. Clearly, the user is continuing to edit war, as the above diffs are as fresh as a few minutes old. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 22:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Don't get me wrong, I fully support this report. The user has continued his behavior despite the community making reservations about it (and multiple warnings). —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;(]) 22:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' My reverts to this article are clearly exempt. Anyone (with any sense) that actually bothers to look properly at the changes made will see that. Tenebrae's actions are blockable on BLP grounds alone. --] (]) 22:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

::Untrue. The two book citations and the History Channel citations are clearly RS. Please do not make false statements. --] (]) 22:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
:Clear violation and no indication intent to stop.--] (]) 22:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

:: '''User to Admin Suggestion''': It's becoming clear now, that this user is being truly disruptive. Although an Admin gave them the benefit of the doubt before, in regards to them taking a break on another article they had edit-warred on, I don't think their behavior this time around can be excused. ] (]) 22:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

*It's about as clear a case of BLP violation as you can get. The second wave of warring by Tenebrae added a section entitled '''Murder of Charlie Wilson''' which neither mentions the subject of the BLP, nor the murder of Charlie Wilson. Twice. {{tq|In 1990, the former treasurer of the Great Train Robbery Charles Frederick "Charlie" Wilson had moved to Marbella, Spain, where he was suspected to be involved in drug smuggling. Engaged to launder some of the proceeds from the Brink's-Mat robbery, he lost the investors £3million.}}

How on earth is '''a section about a murder with NO referenece to either the events or the subject''' possibly allowable in a BLP? Your trust in the reliability of the History Channel is touching though. --] (]) 22:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

:Hence "expand section", which other editors would do if you allowed them to. Not allowing anyone else to edit an article is ], through and through. And your very strange personal POV about the History Channel notwithstanding, it is unquestionably a reliable source. An entire channel devoted to, among other things, history, with a full staff of researchers, writers, editors, producers, historical archives and more. I don't understand why you felt the need to be snide about the History Channel, but judging from some of the truly outrageous comments you've made to and about other editors, it shouldn't surprise me that you seem not to be able to speak collegially and civilly.

:In any case, it's not an issue about non-RS sourcing. You're not allowed to edit-war because you personally don't like the History Channel.--] (]) 22:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

===Comment transcluded from inadvertent second filing, voluntarily deleted===
There already is an ANI, started by an editor other than myself, regarding Hillbillyholiday's edit-warring and disruptive editing across numerous articles: ]. In the case of this article, he is correct in that 3RR has an exception for BLP issues. However — and especially in his last couple reverts — he is edit-warring to remove completely RS-cited passages, with cites from two books and the ]. I'm sure he has his reasons — but since it doesn't involve BLP sourcing, those reasons don't matter since he is ]-ing and showing a pattern of combative behavior.--] (]) 22:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
:Why is this editor unwilling to join the talk page?--] (]) 22:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
::I have my guesses, but he's the only one who could say. Whatever his reasons, he's refusing to act in a collaborative or collegial manner. --] (]) 22:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

*{{AN3|blocked| 24 hours}} ]] 15:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Ariana Grande discography}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|87.166.129.25}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|796932350|22:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}} "A registered user has already clarified it months ago."
# {{diff|oldid=796607580|diff=796760425|label=Consecutive edits made from 22:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC) to 22:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|796760280|22:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)}} "/* As lead artist */I can't accept this. This is not right."
## {{diff2|796760384|22:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Promotional singles */"
## {{diff2|796760425|22:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|796760995|22:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|796774517|00:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)}}

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Still making edits against concensus without discussing after 4th warning on same article, all within the last 2 days. — ] <sub>]</sub> 23:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' {{tq|A registered user has already clarified it months ago.}} My first problem with this series of edits is: which user? The second problem is that they didn't see the discussion on the Talk page either. Several users have already stated their agreement against this anon's wishes. The third problem is they continue to make the series of edits while ignoring the messages already given to them. While they haven't violated 3RR, it does get concerning if they keep repeating the same series of edits against consensus. ] <span style="background-color:#368ec9; font-family:Papyrus">(Jalen D. Folf)</span> (]) 00:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' Just want to note that this editor appears to be the same editor that was reverting the same edit over several days over the past week or so, using a very similar IP address (]). See , , , and (colorful edit summaries can be see at the editor's ]). ] (]) 01:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
::In this case, I would support a rangeblock. It would put a stop to the "change IPs every few days and make the same series of edits hoping I don't get caught" technique/pattern. ] <span style="background-color:#368ec9; font-family:Papyrus">(Jalen D. Folf)</span> (]) 01:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' This same series of edits was made by {{noping|Fan4Life}} before their fortnight block. It's probably them evading the block. See , , , . ] <span style="background-color:#368ec9; font-family:Papyrus">(Jalen D. Folf)</span> (]) 01:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' My final comment on the matter for now, but another series by IP ] on . Rangeblock case appears strong. ] <span style="background-color:#368ec9; font-family:Papyrus">(Jalen D. Folf)</span> (]) 01:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
::There seems to be edit warring from three different IPs:
:::*{{user|87.166.129.25}}
:::*{{user|87.166.184.156}} and
:::*{{user|87.166.163.43}}
::This might be handled with a month of semiprotection. (Less risk of collateral damage than a range block, if this is the only article being targeted). ] (]) 02:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
:::I had an alternative option that included the month-long semiprotect, as this is the only targeted article. I just never bothered to bring it up. Thanks {{u|EdJohnston}}. ] <span style="background-color:#368ec9; font-family:Papyrus">(Jalen D. Folf)</span> (]) 03:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
:{{AN3|p}} For <s>a month</s> two months. ], ], ] 04:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Buranji}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|115.248.26.61}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|796985094|07:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)}} "There is no evidence of your claim too. So, until the matter is cleared the information cannot be put up"
# {{diff2|796980205|06:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)}} "There is ample evidence available for my claim, so until the issue is resolved, misinformation should not be published."
# {{diff2|796978823|06:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)}} "The information is incorrect. The Assamese used in Ahom court and Buranjis was the Gargaya variety which was spoken in Upper Assam before the arrival of Ahoms. This variety was developed in Sadiya during Sutiya rule by assimilating Kamrupi Prakrit and..."
# {{diff2|796974336|05:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|796983106|07:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

He has repeatedly removed a reference from the article without modifying any content stating that he's provided "ample evidence". He has been asked to provide his evidence on the talk page; this has not happened and does not look like it's going to happen. —] (]) <small>(please <u>ping</u> when replying)</small> 08:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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

;Page:
# {{pagelinks|Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (UK Parliament constituency)}}
# {{pagelinks|South Ayrshire}}
# {{pagelinks|User talk:Sport and politics}}

;User being reported:
{{userlinks|Sport and politics}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# ], ] "this is non notable information and should not be on this encyclopedia. Wikipeida is not a repository of council workers to be contacted. Being able to identify officers of the council is not a purpose of wikipedia."
# ], ] "Undid revision 796845378 by ] (]) no reason for inclusion justify the inclusion of list and cruft dumping"
# ], ] (after me reverting back to the original consensus) "this is a horribly worded article"
# ], ] (after me reverting back to the original concensus) "Undid revision 797024276 by ] (]) wrong place and wrong article"
# ], ] (after me providing ] to ] on the ] one hour prior and reverting back to the original concensus once again) "Undid revision 797022264 by ] (]) this is notice of the discussions going on do not remove until resolved"
# {{strikethrough|], ] "Edit warring on South Ayrshire: do not engage in hypocrasy"}}

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# ], ] (warning) "User:Sports and Politics complaints and potential edit-warring: new section"
# ], ] (warning) "Edit warring on South Ayrshire: new section"
# ], ] (notice of this report)

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# ], ] "User:Sports and Politics complaints and potential edit-warring: new section"

;<u>Comments:</u>
It may be worth keeping in mind that this is the third time that this user has been involved in an edit warring report. (See ] and ]). ] (]) 15:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

: '''Comment''': It should be noted, that it wouldn't do to include the reported's Talk Page, in the Page list, because a User has the right to remove messages, notices and warnings. They lose that right to edit their own Talk Page, only if an Admin believes so. ] (]) 15:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

::Sorry I did not realise that was allowed! I'll strike that one off the list then. ] (]) 15:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Vandalism

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Categories: