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

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

Revision as of 04:46, 19 March 2018 editNeilN (talk \| contribs)134,455 edits →User:PZP-003 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:43, 10 January 2025 edit undoToBeFree (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators127,936 edits →User:Theonewithreason reported by User:PhilipPirrip (Result: Filer informed): reorder
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 = ~~363~~		\|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=" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' 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: ~~Blocked~~ ~~indef~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|~~Western world~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|LittleDipper}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|830807464\|01:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}} "Let's stop this bullshit and talk"
	# {{diff2\|830768454\|20:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)}} "Do you even know what is going on? "Make a sacrifice" is clearly part of my sig. Also, please see my talk page. basedon your edit summaries, it is clear you have antisemitic views; if you continue this obnixious behavior again-ignoring scholarly edits based on your autistic feels-I will report you."
	# {{diff2\|830715798\|14:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)}} "I am not "focusing only on the Hebrew Bible". If you wish, we can talk about its position on the talk page, but please do not remove it from the lead."
	# {{diff2\|830646801\|02:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)}} "All of Western ethics (all the way from "make a wish foundation gifts" for people dying of cancer to not letting disable people die in the forest) were first practiced by the people of Ancient Israel. Also, it is patently not true that Western culture was born in Europe, the Greeks took their mathematics and science and even symbolism (gold, silver, bronze, iron) from the civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Sumer, Egypt, Babylonia. "Alpha" came from the Middle Eastern letter "Aleph", "Beta" from "Beth", and so on."

	;Diffs of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ ~~/ 3RR warning~~:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|830787289\|23:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)}} "/* March 2018 */ new section"
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

	;Diffs of ~~attempt~~ to ~~resolve~~ ~~dispute~~ ~~on article talk page~~:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# {{diff2\|830565354\|16:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)}} "/* POV-pushing in the lede */ new section"

	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Brightline 3rr vio, diff 1 is a revert of this , diffs 2-4 are a revert of this . Edit summaries are troubling, especially this and this , gives impression of being a ] here to ]. Broke 3rr after I warned him. ] (]) 04:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
	::Especially disturbing are you ignoring what scholars say and pushing your POV, and you thinking it is okay to revert edits even without discussing them on the talk page first. YOU are the one violating ] (what my edit summaries contain I just took from scholars) by accusing me of POV-pushing just because I added an image representative of Israel (see my argument on my talk page discussion with LuigiPotaro69, another antisemite who is also alt-right; Luigi himself is, like Khirurg, violating ], accusing me of Jewish propaganda without any evidence other than my edit being something he hates) on the lead, indicating that you are expressing your anti-Israel sentiment here. i should be the one accusing YOU of edit warring for forcing your way that your new edits should remain in place even though they are the one that should be reverted until consensus says otherwise per ]. ] ] 08:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
	:Talkpage edits like aren't too pretty either. ] (]) 11:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
	::Oh, sorry about that. I just felt I was being bullied by Khirurg's dishonesty and ironic accusations.] ] 13:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
	:::{{U\|LittleDipper}}: Cool. An apology for a personal attack, followed immediately by an excuse and '''another''' personal attack. That's really not how it works, guy. --] \| ] 16:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|indef}} The edit warring is blockable, the repeated personal attacks (even here!) makes it an indef. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Forza Italia\|Forza Italia (2013)}} <br />
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mujdeda}}

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}
	;]
	# {{Diff2\|829465284\|20:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|829571066\|13:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|829602650\|17:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|829665977\|01:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|829789739\|20:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|829921690\|16:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|829974860\|23:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|830622993\|23:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|830746246\|17:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|830801118\|00:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|830816206\|03:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|830902273\|15:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;]
	# {{Diff2\|829428079\|15:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|829466357\|20:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|829501201\|00:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|829571003\|13:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|830623051\|23:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|830746213\|17.59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|830801013\|00:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|830816288\|03:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{Diff2\|830902206\|15:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' {{Diff2\|830754897\|19:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)}} and {{Diff2\|830859817\|09:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}}
			# (31 December 2024)
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See both ] and ]

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	User keeps edit warring on both Forza Italia articles despite warnings from other users and a personal attempt to tell him on his behaviour constituting violations of ] and ]. User fails to engage in any attempt of real discussion; he only tries to impose his view unilaterally (despite having been warned repeteadly and having been told there was no consensus for his edits), even resorting to unpolite and, sometimes, uncivil comments (as seen or ). ] (]) 16:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	That is not true, actually they are started edit war without any reflection of the discussion at ], where were actual consensus of users to have flag there, as it is normalised by the wikipedia habits, only not to include anthem. --] (]) 16:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
	:Blocked 24 hours for blatant edit warring — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 21:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: no violation)==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Daniel Biss}} </br>
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|NatGertler}}

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Removal of a well sourced and referenced negative material of a politician ] already reached consensus on talk page. The editor made no attempt to dicsuss on a talk page, opting for a blank removal. ] (]) 17:35, 17 March 2018 (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.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{AN3\|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	1st:
	2nd:
	3rd:
	*Well, let's count the falsehoods here.
	#Not "well sourced" material, but rather material sourced to a self-published blog and a site of user-edited content, and thus in violation of our BLP sourcing standards.
	#Talk page discussion had not covered the BLP problems with the sources (not that local consensus can override BLP standards anyway)
	#Claim of "no attempt to discuss on talk page" is ignoring, well,
	:Yup, that seems to cover everything. --] (]) 18:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
	Decline to act this time as there do seem to be concerns over the reliability of the sourcing and 3RR has not been exceeded. But both editors would be strongly advised to defer to the consensus at RSN and not to persist in this edit war. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 21:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
	:There is also at WP:BLPN. ] (]) 01:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Cheddar Man}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Libertas et Veritas}}

	;Previous version reverted to:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	# {{diff2\|~~830959673~~\|22:58, 17 ~~March~~ ~~2018~~ (UTC)}} "~~Undid~~ ~~revision~~ ~~830956399~~ by ] (]) ~~none~~ of ~~your~~ ~~re-verts are valid, and do not correspond with the information in the studies; no explanation for removal of additional study I~~ ~~posted~~"		# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
	# {{diff2\|~~830955362~~\|22:31, 17 ~~March~~ ~~2018~~ (UTC)}} "Undid revision ~~830954547~~ by ] (])~~yes~~ it ~~does,~~ ~~which~~ is ~~why~~ it is ~~included~~ in ~~this~~ ~~article;~~ ~~Cheddar~~ ~~Man~~ ~~has~~ to do ~~with~~ ~~ancestry~~ of ~~indigenous~~ ~~Anglo-Celtic~~ ~~Britons~~"		# {{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\|830953846\|22:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}} "/* Genetic change since the Mesolithic */ "indigenous" is not contestable at all; that is who the studies are referring to - those descended from the populations who arrived thousands of years ago and have been largely isolated since, not those of recent foreign origins and migration in the past two centuries"
	# {{diff2\|~~830936025~~\|20:09, 17 ~~March~~ ~~2018~~ (UTC)}} "~~Undid~~ ~~revision~~ ~~830929591~~ by ] (]) No ~~they~~ ~~aren't~~ ~~,and certainly not in the section about the source of other genes in modern indigenous Britons; Haak study also discussed the Mesolithic WHG percentages in modern British and other~~ ~~Europeans~~"		# {{diff2\|1267994453\|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# {{diff2\|~~830956433~~\|22:38, 17 ~~March~~ ~~2018~~ (UTC)}} "~~Warning: Three-revert rule on ].~~"		# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"

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

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Edit-warring to get irrelevant material into the article, in spite of having been reverted by multiple other editors, both as this user and as an IP. Because this account is with all probability (per ]) the same person as ], who made multiple reverts on the same article, since the user account was created just minutes after the IP made their last edits, and continued the IP's edits, adding the same material, so they're at well over four reverts... - '''Tom''' \| ] ] 23:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	{{ping\|Libertas et Veritas}} can you comment here please? You are on the verge of being blocked on your very first day of editing Misplaced Pages. Have you stopped edit warring now? — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 00:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*I wasn't aware this rule applied to this page because each edit had to be reviewed before being applied as a permanent change to the article. Furthermore, the user above who reported me has himself violated the rule, as has one other user. I have not added "irrelevant" material whatsoever to the article. The fact he is claiming this is ridiculous. I have made edits to the article supported by authors of the studies mentioned in the article with regards to Cheddar Man. I have also added peer-reviewed, highly accurate and respected scholarly studies to the article's section on the genetic contributions to modern indigenous Britons from prehistoric migratory waves after the Mesolithic period. How can "Thomas" above seriously question me adding scholarly material to a section specifically titled "Genetic change ''since'' the Mesolithic" (i.e. Genetic changes after the Mesolithic)? The latest study I included specifically deals with the genetic impact of Bronze Age and Neolithic migrations, and the genetic continuity (and very little change) in modern indigenous Celtic Britons since the Bronze Age.] (]) 01:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	::The range contributions from ] have many similarities to the work of ]. If Libertas et Veritas is the same person as a prior IP, as suggested above by ] he is continuing the same edit war under two different identities at ]. ] (]) 01:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	:::Yes, that is my current IP. I created an account. Again, I did not think my edits violated 3RR for ] because the article has all edits in a pending review process. It was my mistake. Future edits at the article will be preceded by discussion and mediation on the talk page.] (]) 02:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	::::Thank you for your response. Please note that 3RR applies no matter how "correct / appropriate" you feel your edits are. I see you have now posted on the talk page. Please do not make the contested edits again until/unless supported by others. I am closing this report now. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 08:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: no violation) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Tamannaah filmography}}
			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))
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Prasath94}}
			*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
			:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
			*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
			*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
			*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
			*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
			*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
			*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
			*:
			*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
			*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			{{AN3\|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Previous version reverted to:

			:That sounds good to me. I’m guessing he will get reverted anyway. If he reverts again, I’ll mention it here. ] (]) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|831018978\|07:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "/* Films */"
	# {{diff\|oldid=830660752\|diff=830861338\|label=Consecutive edits made from 09:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC) to 09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|830860533\|09:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	## {{diff2\|830860817\|09:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}} "/* Films */"
	## {{diff2\|830861194\|09:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}} "/* Films */"
	## {{diff2\|830861338\|09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}} "/* Films */"

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

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

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

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	He continuously adds announced films to the table, when there should only be those films that are in production, thereby violating ] and ] in the process. This is all happening ]. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">] ] </span> 08:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268186285\|diff=1268208200\|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:There is no violation as many of the diffs presented above are consecutive. However if the problematic edits persist, then a block may be required. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 22:41, 18 March 2018 (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:'''
			# {{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:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result:Blocked 31 hours ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1268160586\|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|User talk:Bidgee}} <br />
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{iplinks\|122.106.100.42}}

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	Looking at the of ], you can see that {{u\|Bidgee}} has asked the IP to stay away and and reverted additions from the IP on 20 occasions in the last hour. The IP has also reverted posts from Bidgee on the IP's talk page. I suspect Bidgee would appreciate some relief. ] (]) 13:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|blocked\|31 hours}} ] ] 13:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: warned) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Slovenian parliamentary election, 2018}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sredina}}

	Sredina has repeatedly reinserted patently incorrect and error-strewn text into this article.

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	No 3RR violation, but reverting patently incorrectly information into the article (especially after being told their text is contains numerous errors) needs addressing. ] ]] 13:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />		<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	There are in fact 90 members of the NA, but the first paragraph is about the elections of 88 MPs who are elected differently, than 2 representatives of national minorities, elections of which are explained in the second paragraph of the section.

			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.
	The last paragraph is written as it is written in the law, which does not state that there must be 35% of female, but 35% of candidates of each gender. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:I am not able to comment on the merits of Sredina's edits, but they are clearly edit warring. {{ping\|Number 57}} are you asking for a temporary block of Sredina or would a warning suffice at this stage. {{ping\|Sredina}} do you agree to stop edit warring on this (or any) article? — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 22:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|MSGJ}} Just a warning for future conduct will do. Cheers, ] ]] 22:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	:::Closing. Editor has been formally warned — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 22:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==

			There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Katy Perry}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Gekaap}}

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	;Previous version reverted to:
	# {{diff2\|830806837\|01:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}} ‎
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|831089577\|18:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "Sexists and rape culture enablers need not comment."
	# {{diff2\|831087874\|17:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "Okay. Here's your source: https://en.wikipedia.org/Sexual_assault It is absolute idiocy to deny that this is sexual assault. Your sexist attitudes do not change the facts."
	# {{diff2\|831086916\|17:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "The contestant does not deny she kissed him against his will. To the contrary, the contestant said he would not have given permission if asked. Just because a 19 year old doesn't know what sexual assault is, does not mean it ceases to be sexual assault."
	# {{diff2\|831045407\|12:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "This is no mischaracterization. A twitter feed does not define sexual assault."
	# {{diff2\|830944904\|21:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 830807381 by ] (])"

			:]
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			:"""
	# {{diff2\|831087227\|17:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"
			:] 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)
	# {{diff2\|831087962\|17:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"
			:: 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)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
			::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
			::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
			::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
			::Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
			::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
			::Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
			::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
			::I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
			::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
			::3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with ] (]) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|nv}}. This report is a mess. ] (]) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment ] (]) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{re\|NotQualified}} Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--] (]) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. ] (]) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
			*::::# I add templates to an article with faults
			*::::# The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
			*::::# I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
			*::::# They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
			*::::# I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
			*::::# Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
			*::::# I notify the user
			*::::# I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
			*::::# Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
			*::::# You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
			*::::I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
			*:::::That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
			*:::::I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
			*:::::I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. ] (]) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	Editor refuses to discuss on the article's Talk page and repeatedly inserts improperly sourced claim reflecting their personal POV. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>] </sup> 18:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Gee, how do I report your for edit warring? You are continually deleting well sourced information, for no reason other than trying to enforce a personal POV, which is FACTUALLY UNTRUE!!!! I've sourced the Washington Post, and have even directly copied statements from other wikipedia entries (along with sourcing). If the info is poorly sourced when I include it on one page, you should be going to delete it from other pages. But that's not what you care about. You only care about enforcing a particular POV in once specific instance, despite the fact that it plainly false. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}} Edit warring + BLP issues + attacks on other editors ] <sup>]</sup> 18:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked) ==
			# {{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:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:2017–18 Serie A table}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
	'''User being reported:'''{{userlinks\|LICA98}}

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
	# {{diff2\|~~831052731~~\|9:22, 18 ~~March~~ ~~2018~~ (UTC)}} ‎		# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	# {{diff2\|831095432\|14:42, 18 March 2018 UTC)}} ‎
	# {{diff2\|831092704\|14:23, 18 March 2018 UTC)}} ‎
	# {{diff2\|831089941\|14:05, 18 March 2018 UTC)}} ‎
	# {{diff2\|831055732\|9:51, 18 March 2018 UTC)}} ‎

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

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			: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)
	] has added unsourced material on ]. I asked him on his talkpage ] to source what he adds to the template but he hasn't replied. He has reverted four times in less than 24 hours and the current revision on the page is his as of 14:42 UTC 18 March 2018, located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:2017%E2%80%9318_Serie_A_table&oldid=831095432. I can't revert to the old version because I have already reverted three times; an administrator or another wikipedian must revert to the old version. The informations that ] added are assumptions and are unsourced per ] and should be deleted or sources must be added. ] (]) 19:13, 18 March 2018 (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)
	:Blocked 24 hours. LICA98 was warned a week ago about edit warring and the 3RR rule, so no excuses there. You were correct to stop reverting and wait for assistance from others. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 22:31, 18 March 2018 (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: ~~both~~ blocked) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Italian_destroyer_Espero_~~(~~1927~~)}} ~~<br />~~		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Olonia}} {{userlinks\|RegiaMarina}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|831057116\|14:04, 18 March 2018‎ (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|831059350\|14:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|831060278\|14:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|831061117\|14:39, 18 March 2018‎‎ (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|831072404\|16:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} - after a request to stop war-editing was posted on user's Talk page

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# {{diff2\|831061596\|14:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}}
	# ]

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# {{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:'''
	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	] as well as ] is the same person, not sure if this is legal here but my guess it's not or definitely should not be. I suspect the ] is him too judging from the stylistics of the message left on my Talk page. User contributes nothing new, just editing slightly paragraphs and removing perfectly fine references and trying to promote his own personal website instead. As far as I know he is not a renowned historian so not only this unacceptable practice but simply immodest. From his last message he left om my Talk page it is clear he is only here to pick up fights and not to contribute anything productive. After I left a message on his page asking him to stop, he immediately edited the article again. And then again.


	Admits he copies and edits out of spite.
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	In response to ] he admits ].
	] (]) 19:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	:Both editors Olonio and Crook1 have been blocked 24 hours for edit warring. No violation by RegiaMarina although if you can present any evidence (when your block expires) that they are the same person as Olonio (preferably at ] then the situation will be assessed. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

	'''~~Page~~:''' ~~{{pagelinks\|Skylab}}~~ <br />		<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\| 2A02:A03F:4A20:1A00:4C63:1CBD:1688:954F}}

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'm afraid I'm new at this and can't get the links to previous versions and difference pages to work. This is over Skylab being the "first" versus "only" US space station, as described in the first sentence of the lede.
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
	This editor in question has changed this back six times today and a couple of times yesterday. The description of an early revert of his changes requested moving this to the talk page, but he seems to have ignored that suggestion.
	] (]) 20:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	:Blocked 31 hours — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 22:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked) ==

	'''~~Page~~:''' {{~~pagelinks~~\|~~Cantus~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|89.115.121.50}}

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

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268346980\|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."

			# {{diff2\|1268346280\|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."

			# {{diff2\|1268345229\|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"







			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	This has done nothing else than reverting the same edits on this article 8 times on a single day. Need I say more? ] (]) 22:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	:Blocked 31 hours — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 22:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	*{{ec}} I'm getting the strong impression that {{u\|Mad_Duke}}, {{u\|FGordillo}}, and ] were brought by ], that ] to ] an ]. Yes, the 89.115, did violate ], but we don't tolerate this sort of organized ], either. This is why I protected the page instead of blocking.
	:{{ping\|Mad_Duke\|FGordillo\|N1CK3Y}} What is your involvement with ]? There's no pretending that Mad-Duke and FGordillo are uninvolved, so don't even try it. N1CK3Y, you do have prior edits in unrelated topics, but they're so few and rare that ]. ] (]) 22:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	* Hello, you are correct. We are alumni of the aforementioned organisation. I think. At least, I am. I do not know if one, both, or neither of the two other named contributors are currently members. I do know, though, that the IP that just got blocked is very much a current member. That member is not trying to prevent promotion but, rather, to ensure censorship. Whether the "controversial" statement stays in the article or not does not actually matter much to me. ] (]) 22:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	::{{re\|N1CK3Y}} see ]. It's very clear that alumni are trying to "make people aware" of that organization, which is promotion. If there was an independent source that established that BEST was noteworthy for their cantus activity, and the intro of the article mentioned noteworthy cantus-hosting organization, it'd be different. But as it is, it's just holding up BEST and only BEST as equivalent to entire countries. That is promotion, plain and simple. ]. ] (]) 22:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	:::{{re\|Ian.thomson}}Fair is fair. I see you have protected the article. I agree with your decision. ] (]) 22:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
	* Hello, Mad_Duke here. All I've done was to put back the mention that they keep on deleting because from their PR standpoint (as an organization which organizes Cantus events) they don't want to be associated with this practice. That is censorship pure and simple. If you take a look, this started on 21:15, 15 May 2017‎ Dragosgaf who is a member of the organization. There is ample evidence that in this huge organization which covers whole of Europe Cantus is regularly taking place. My only involvement is thus adding back the content which was previously deleted {{ping\|Ian.thomson}}. So basically, you got this whole thing backward. Members of the organization are the ones who wish to delete the mention because they don't want to be associated and a few alumni are the ones who keep adding it back because it's a fact that it exists. I don't personally care for the mention of BEST in the article, but I became active after I've found out that the reason why they went and deleted something was because it doesn't work with their image which they are trying to promote. Organizations are not physical individuals and the Europe "right to forget" does not count.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
	::See ]. The edit war started when added the mention of BEST to the article. It was not there originally. 178.148 was promoting the group, which ]. This has nothing to do with censorship or "right to forget." Honestly, the idea that you were called in to fight "censorship" of something the article didn't even mention until today is honestly really hard to believe. ] (]) 00:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 36 hours) ==

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Wu Chinese}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Nichts0176}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|831142207\|23:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 831138938 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|831072599\|16:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 831066875 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|831059595\|14:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 831059101 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|831055308\|13:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 831025517 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|831012121\|06:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 830679433 by ] (])"

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|831139480\|23:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "/* Edit warring */ new section"

			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)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|831140025\|23:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)}} "/* "Uesian" */ comment"
			*: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)
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I realize the policy states, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts'', right? '''This is three, not more than three.''' It shows the desperation. ] (]) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{u\|Shecose}}, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ] (]) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	New single-purpose account edit warring to add poorly sourced ] to article, despite warnings and explanation of policies by Kanguole and myself. ] (]) 00:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}
	A cautiously editted information about an alternative name of the key word of this title has been deliberately deleted again and again. Should it not be me to blame but you?
	my completion was added according to the original structure of the text and it belongs to a paralell information to the others. It reflects a new knowlege about this entry word and has its source.
	Zahhe asked for source, and I showed one. I see no reason why he still blame.
	Kanguole blamed of its neogism, but he should open his eyes to look and understand, that it is a new knowledge, not a new term to be inserted.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	they think I am alone and they can bully me!
			# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
	] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 00:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			# "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."
	*{{AN3\|b\|36 hours}} ] <sup>]</sup> 02:31, 19 March 2018 (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."
			# "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)"

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR for two weeks ) ==

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Alliance for Securing Democracy}} <br />
			#: "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."
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|PZP-003}}
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Previous version reverted to:'''
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
	Ok, this has gone long enough. Today:
	# (edit summary displays clear ] approach)
	# (edit summary contains false [[WP:NPA\|personal attacks)
	#
	#

			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.
	Slightly outside of the 24 hour window:
	5.
	6.
	7.

			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).
	Edit warring on a related page:
	#
	#
	#

			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.
	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* First discretionary sanctions notification
	* First warning about edit warring.
	* Second discretionary sanction notification
	* Discretionary sanctions block
	* 3RR warning
	* warning about personal attacks

			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 ].
	The user was blocked just two days ago. They resumed their disruptive behavior immediately after the previous block expired.

	'''Diff of ~~attempt~~ to ~~resolve~~ ~~dispute~~ ~~on article~~ talk page:''' ~~(though~~ ~~there~~ ~~are~~ ~~other~~ ~~issues~~)		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	PZP-003 received numerous warnings, advice and suggestions. They did not heed any of these. They continued with edit warring and ] even after getting blocked for it. They also started making personal attacks and attacking other users: , , and has continued making these despite being asked several times to stop.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer informed) ==
	This isn't just a edit warring or even a discretionary sanctions problem - it's pretty much ].] (]) 01:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
	notification
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Theonewithreason}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*Not sure how to respond to all of this (I am relatively new here, been editing for about 2 months). All I can ask is that any user/admin who may want to block me read through Volunteer Marek's posts/edits and it will become pretty clear what is going on here. He exaggerates and literally just makes things up because I am adding factual NPOV/RS information into articles that he disagrees with politically. Other users have backed me up on this claim (if you need to verify that just read through my talk page and other talk pages I have posted on). ] (]) 02:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

	:P.S. I am done making any more edits for today (besides here or on talk pages) so I will not be reverting any controversial edits (even though all of the edits I have made are RS and NPOV contributions intended to add balance to articles which are heavily slanted in one direction) for at least the next 24 hours. I never thought that other users would be able to bully and censor editors by constantly (and selectively) saying "take it to talk page for consensus" or "obtain consensus first", but apparently in the age of Trump this kind of thing is allowed to flourish on WP. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)</small>

			#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Uninvolved in the content issues. Have tried to counsel the editor on their UTP and mine, and I've seen no actual evidence that my words have had any effect. Without looking any deeper at the situation, the thing that jumps out at me is {{tq\|I do not "lack competence"}} above, from an editor with 146 edits. Of course they lack competence, they have 146 edits. I have stressed on both UTPs that it takes years to become even halfway competent, so apparently they didn't believe me. I would like to see them say convincingly that they understand that they do in fact lack competence in virtually every Misplaced Pages area except the basic operation of their editor of choice. Without that understanding, there is little chance of significant improvement in my view. ―] ] 03:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#

	;Propose site ban.
	**This editor has behaved very badly, and it has not responded to a boatload of guidance and advice (see its talk page). It seems to lack the interest or competence to read Policies and Guidelines. This account is an SPA only interested in POV-pushing edits. I suggest it be banned, and if this user reconsiders and wants to come back with a new ID and a fresh start, good luck next time. ]] 02:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

	***The same exact things could be said about editor SPECIFICO (esp. in regard to POV-pushing and SPA). Also I have read through the WP guidelines. And I do not "lack competence"...I'm simply frustrated and outraged at the blatant censorship going on here which is being perpetuated on numerous articles by users like yourself, Volunteer Marek, and a few others. ] (]) 02:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

	I don't see a 3RR violation here but it's difficult to tell because the diffs are out of order. PZP-003's edits, in order, with timestamps:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	The ''Previous version reverted to'' has timestamp and appears to be a revert of PZP-003's 3rd edit. Did you link the right version or was this an addition followed by 3 reverts? ] (]) 02:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Neither article is under discretionary sanctions yet so we won't be talking about topic bans here. Trying to decide between a strong warning or block. {{u\|Volunteer Marek}}, the earliest diff was part of two edits - one that added info and one that removed accidentally added info. The content that remained seems to be new, yes? --] <sup>]</sup> 02:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
	:I'm assuming that by "earliest diff" you mean . The content is not new. Rather it's a restoration - a revert - of the same material, just slightly changed in wording. The original content was added by an account called ]. The text was removed by ] . It was restored, in slightly altered form by PZP-033 in the diff provided. The text under dispute is basically the same - it specifically mentions ] and Clinton advisors.
	:Strangely, even though the original text was added by a different account (and then restored by PZP-033), the person being quoted, Matt Taibbi, was brought up on the talk page by PZP-033, not "POLITICO" . Check user maybe needed.] (]) 03:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
	:: I see a different sources and different content. POLITICO's (sourced to The Intercept and Rolling Stone) is:
	::*''Journalist Glenn Greenwald criticized the ASD, calling it "the ultimate union of mainstream Democratic foreign policy officials, and the world's most militant, militaristic, neocons." Matt Taibbi criticized the organization saying they "represent an unpleasantly unsurprising union of neoconservative Iraq war cheerleaders like Bill Kristol and Beltway Democrats like would-be Clinton CIA chief Michael Morell."''
	:: PZP-003's (sourced to The Nation) is:
	::*''Other advisory council members include neoconservative political analyst and commentator ] and Hillary Clinton foreign-policy adviser ].''
	:: ] (]) 03:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:::James J. Lambden is correct. What Volunteer Marek posted about my edit is untrue. The edit I restored throughout today is not the same edit that a different user POLITICO restored yesterday. Volunteer Marek seems to be obfuscating things again. ] (]) 03:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

	::::{{u\|PZP-003}}, for the purposes of edit warring, the text does not have to be identical. We look for similar content. You understand that, right? For example, "Mary had a little lamb" would be considered the same as "Mary owned a lamb when she was 13.". --] <sup>]</sup> 03:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

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

			I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{u\|Theonewithreason}}, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Lee Jung-jin (footballer)}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sillypickle123}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268583865\|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268451301\|21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268450870\|21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268449472\|21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268448980\|21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	:::::I understand that however the 3 edits I reverted today are not the same as the one from yesterday. The one from yesterday dealt with critcism of ASD and the one from today was simple RS info on current advisory board members. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			# {{diff2\|1268447335\|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
	::::::{{ping\|PZP-003}} You've had a pretty rocky start in this area. You say you're done for today. How are you going to change the way you edit tomorrow so we don't end up here again? Will you agree to a voluntary ] on articles for two weeks? --] <sup>]</sup> 03:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268463321\|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:::::::If Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, and several other users I can name (who are all very aggressive and biased with removing NPOV/RS info properly inserted into articles) also agree to it, then I am OK with it. If that is something you are unable to do what are my other options? ] (]) 03:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268447335\|diff=1268451519\|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
	::::::::A warning that ''any'' more reverts without gaining consensus on the talk pages may result in a block. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::::What exactly are you saying - that if I revert w/o consensus on ANY article I will be automatically blocked? How long will the block last? The warning on discretionary sanction pages states "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article". So are you saying that I can't revert even once? That seems extremely harsh if that is what you mean. ] (]) 04:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{ping\|PZP-003}} I'm saying you ''may'' be blocked. The admin handling any future reports (and it may be me) will take into account this warning when deciding to block and if so, for how long. There are no options here that will allow you to edit the way you have been doing. If you don't want to accept any solution that will curtail your reverts, there's always the option of a block. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::::::How long will the block last? ] (]) 04:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::::::You need to understand that your belief that other editors are "very aggressive and biased" has no relevance. If other editors object to your edits, you need to open a talk page discussion and explain why you believe your edit improves the article, and work to reach ] that it does. If that consensus rejects your proposed edits, you're not entitled to keep reverting them because you disagree with their conclusions. ] (]) 04:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::::::72 hours. That should give you enough time to closely observe how discussion progresses with these types of articles (one of which I've added 1RR to). But really, a voluntary ] on all articles for two weeks (observing any extra restrictions already present on an article of course) is probably the best option for you here. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::OK I will agree to the voluntary 1RR for 2 weeks I guess if you think that is more helpful. ] (]) 04:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
	Just to note, the now-blocked (for name reasons) {{U\|POLITICO}} that PZP-003 and then edit-warred (and was blocked for) . This was POLITICO's second edit ever, and was done '''while''' PZP-003 was blocked. So maybe a checkuser should weigh in if PZP-003 is going to claim its not him. --] \| ] 04:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
	:Just for the record what Calton is claiming above is incorrect (he/she lies and obfuscates in a similar way that Volunteer Marek does). As James Lambden clarified that POLITICO revert was different than what I revertd previously ] (]) 04:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	{{u\|PZP-003}} agrees to a two-week ] restriction on all articles. This does not negate any other restrictions (e.g., consensus required) that have been placed on articles. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
			* {{AN3\|b\| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:43, 10 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.

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

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

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

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

"I "tried to delete me reporting them""

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

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

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

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

The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level

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

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

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

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

I notify the user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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)

Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. Shecose (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I realize the policy states, An editor must not perform more than three reverts, right? This is three, not more than three. It shows the desperation. Shecose (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Shecose, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Theonewithreason reported by User:PhilipPirrip (Result: Filer informed)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? PhilipPirrip (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Theonewithreason, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Filer informed about WP:ONUS/WP:BLPRESTORE; closing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Sillypickle123 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: blocked indefinitely )

User being reported: Sillypickle123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268451486 by LizardJr8 (talk)"
21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268451068 by LizardJr8 (talk)"
21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268450442 by LizardJr8 (talk)"
21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268449111 by JacktheBrown (talk)"
21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268447167 by Tacyarg (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Lee Jung-jin (footballer)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123

Comments:

Blocked indefinitely Jauerback/_dude. 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: