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 18:22, 12 December 2019 editEdJohnston (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →User:Samp4ngeles reported by The Four Deuces (Result: Blocked): Closing← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,723 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	{{pp-move\|small=yes}}		{{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 = ~~400~~		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
	\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f		\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid=" 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: ~~Protected~~ ~~the~~ ~~redirect~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Tabiti~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Orientls}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	'''Previous version reverted to:''' This is the version user is attempting to maintain.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Discussion on merge on talk page including {{userlinks\|Orientls}}:'''

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	There was a ] on the Talk page to merge the articles, which was done by {{userlinks\|Krakkos}} after a majority of editors agreed to redirect the article after several attempts to hijack the page by sockpuppets. (Tabiti, Falconfly, Mmcele, Aurornisxui, 5.226.139.140, 85.194.243.243, 85.194.243.243); See: and .
	] (]) 18:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
	:This issue might now be moot. I recommend closing the request now. ] (]) 14:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
	:*'''Result:''' Fully protected the redirect, since the talk discussion has closed as Merge. This protection can be undone if a new consensus emerges. As Squatch347 observes above, this page has been troubled by sockpuppetry in the past. ] (]) 17:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Maku, Iran}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Matianian}}

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

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	User refuses to cooperate / understand ] and has a behaviour that resembles that of a ] one . --] (]) 01:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|c}} There is not a violation of 3RR here. There is a content dispute between Matianian and HistoryofIran. I am inclined to revert back to the last version that appears widely accepted and protect the page. —''']''' (]) 01:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	* {{AN3\|no}} Since there have been no further reverts, I'm closing this with no action taken. —''']''' (]) 20:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
	::{{~~ping~~\|~~C.Fred~~}} ~~Could~~ ~~the~~ ~~original revision be restored by any chance? A site named http://www~~.~~conflicts~~.~~rem33~~.~~com~~ is ~~clearly~~ ~~not reliable.~~ --] (]) 00:40, 11 ~~December~~ ~~2019~~ (UTC)		:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|HistoryofIran}} I am not immediately convinced that the site is not reliable. You will need to discuss the matter at the article's talk page or ]. —''']''' (]) 00:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
	:::: Oh boy.. --] (]) 00:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Both~~ ~~warned~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Timothée~~ ~~Chalamet~~}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|~~Krimuk2.0~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

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

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	#		# (31 December 2024)
	#		# (6 January 2024)
	#		# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

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

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

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

			<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 />
	Krimuk2.0 made bold edits that significantly altered the article's lede section as well as a paragraph in the body. I then ''altered'' their edit, attempting to bridge the difference between the old version and Krimuk2.0's version, which you can find . They then continued to blanket revert even the slightest edit that I made back to their version and later told me to {{tq\|discuss your revertions in the talk page}}.

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	I did as they suggested, during which I cited/quoted multiple guideline articles such as ], ], and ] in support of my edits, to which they replied with more questions regarding my opinions without offering explanations for theirs. They also blatantly asked {{tq\|Why should a "guideline" have to mention something as basic as that}}, confirming their own failure in adhering to any guideline or policy, and ended the discussion with {{tq\|I'll wait for other editors to weigh in because it's impossible to engage with someone who refuses to see merit in anything that's not their own preference.}} ]<sup>]</sup> 10:00, 9 December 2019 (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)
	:Misinterpret me as you may, your version of the lead with the claim that he "gained wider recognition for his supporting roles in the coming-of-age film Lady Bird and the western Hostiles" is still unsourced with no mention of it in the article body. Also, my statement was to invoke ] for basic logic such as not having three reviews from one publication be mentioned in one article. ] (]) 10:02, 9 December 2019 (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) ==
	::{{tq\|. . . your version of the lead with the claim that he "gained wider recognition for his supporting roles in the coming-of-age film Lady Bird and the western Hostiles" . . .}} I tried to make it better per the agreement we had on the article's talk page with , but you . May I also point out that the last edit I made on the article is more similar to how the paragraph looked prior to your bold edits? ]<sup>]</sup> 10:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	Correction: Krimuk2.0 suggested that I read ], on which I learned that {{tq\|. . . instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, just focus on explaining why ignoring the rules will improve Misplaced Pages in that instance}}, which I believe Krimuk.20 has not done. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
	::: "If there are already two THR reviews in the article, find a different one. There are reliable sources apart from Variety and THR, who publish reviews" is an explanation. ] (]) 10:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	Administrators please note that KyleJoan did not attempt to resolve the dispute. I started the talk page discussion, . Also, I did not continue edit-warring without consensus, . ] (]) 10:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:And ''you'' had consensus? ]<sup>]</sup> 10:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
	::Who reverted after the discussion began? You did! So who needed consensus? ] (]) 10:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

	:::Per ]: {{tq\|The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.}} However you want to assess the situation, . so let's ask this one more time: who '''''really''''' needed consensus? ]<sup>]</sup> 12:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
	*{{ping\|KyleJoan\|Krimuk2.0}} You are both edit-warring. You are both '''warned''' to restrict your edits to the Talk page. Any further reverts by either of you may be met with blocks.--] (]) 13:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
	::Thank you for your attention regarding the matter, {{u\|Bbb23}}. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Criticism of Sikhism}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|49.195.103.221}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:''' (last week, ~ 1 December 2019)

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
	# (04:39, 9 December 2019)
			# {{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"
	# (00:59, 10 December 2019)
			# {{diff2\|1267995715\|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	# (01:17, 10 December 2019)
			# {{diff2\|1267994453\|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
	# (02:07, 10 December 2019)

	'''~~Diff~~ of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ~~(01:09, 10 December 2019)~~		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"

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

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	Attempts to discuss on the talk page hasn't helped. The IP is merely questioning my motives. ] (]) 02:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] \| ] 10:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|John Nicolson}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|81.111.251.142}}

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

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''		'''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 edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' No discussion on talk page

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Clear edit warring from the IP, not 100% sure about the other users involved, but the IP has definitely broke 3RR. ]★] -- 10:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)<br />
			Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} ] (]) 11:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
			:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
			*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
			*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
			*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
			*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
			*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
			*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
			*:
			*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
			*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			:That sounds good to me. I’m guessing he will get reverted anyway. If he reverts again, I’ll mention it here. ] (]) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|2019 Bolivian political crisis}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|98.224.51.125}}, {{userlinks\|2601:346:67F:9AD0:4CE6:9A51:A999:2A77}}, {{userlinks\|2601:346:67F:9AD0:2587:7426:7D82:9AFC}},
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/98.224.51.125
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/2601:346:67F:9AD0:2587:7426:7D82:9AFC
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/2601:346:67F:9AD0:4CE6:9A51:A999:2A77
	;Previous version reverted to:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	One of the users accounts, that of {{userlinks\|98.224.51.125}}:
	1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930149480&oldid=930145974
	2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930149620&oldid=930149518
	3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930150292&oldid=930149620
	4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930152095&oldid=930151634
	5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930153671&oldid=930152157
	3:5 are 3,000 character chunks

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	Same user's account but with slightly different IP {{userlinks\|2601:346:67F:9AD0:4CE6:9A51:A999:2A77}}:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930081989&oldid=930078220
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930074859&oldid=930063387
	#These two are what he writes originally, they get rolled back by {{userlinks\|Jamez42}} and {{userlinks\|BeŻet}} at which point on his other IP he begins edit-warring

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# Left message on user page about issue - ]
	https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:98.224.51.125

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930151817&oldid=930145641

	;<u>Comments:</u>

	I'm not particularly good at the wiki code, probably should have learned it. Anyhow, there are three IPs that I'm almost positive are working in conjunction, since all three are out of Jacksonville Florida, and comment exclusively on the same things at the same times. Which is sock puppeting, I think. Has made repeated massive reversions of the ] page which amount to vandalism. It's also worth noting to correct the vandalism I myself have broken the 3RR, should this not be considered vandalism on his part, or if someone just tells me I'll happily revert my edits. ] (]) 16:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

	*'''Result:''' Semiprotected ] for 2 weeks due to an IP-hopping edit warrior. If this editor has valid points to make they should use the talk page and wait till they can convince others. ] (]) 16:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Alerts, 1RR on article) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of reported UFO sightings}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ජපස}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

	'''~~Diff~~ of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''		'''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 ]."

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

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u~~> <br /~~>		<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	The first revert was to old material added long ago (5 years ago removed without discussion), but it is still a revert of another editor. No effort was made to resolve this or justify it on the talk page just this ] and some snotty edit summaries. In fact followed up with this ].] (]) 17:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	* '''Comment by uninvolved editor:''' These two are going after each other at ]. Without taking sides, I suggest that an administrator examine the situation and apply sanctions as needed. --] (]) 18:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}
	*{{admin note}} This is within the pseudoscience DS area, so I have applied 1RR to the article and notified both editors. – ]] 04:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
	:*'''Result:''' Closing this report per the DS alerts and the 1RR by ]. ]'s post is not a sufficient justification for reverting. Consensus is needed for controversial changes. when it's actually a disagreement about sourcing is getting close to a block. ] (]) 15:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|International cricket in 2019–20}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Talu Arain }}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

	'''Diff of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ / ~~3RR~~ ~~warning~~:''' I posted ~~on their talkpage at 15:55 today, with the last revert, above, happening at 18:20.~~		'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Comments:''' This user keeps changing the location of the upcoming cricket tour between ] without providing any sources, or communicating on their talkpage. They started this morning, to what I thought was a good-faith edit, which I dropped a on their talkpage. Both myself and Spike 'em have posted on this user's talkpage to offer help, but they've just gone ahead and reverted without explination/sourcing. The rest of their edits have involved adding false information, such as , suggesting ] issues. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC) <br />
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} – ]] 04:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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

			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.
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Dodge Tomahawk}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Dennis Bratland}}

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	;Previous version reverted to:

			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)
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|930214666\|00:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Dennis Bratland (])"
	# {{diff2\|930212948\|23:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Dennis Bratland (])"
	# {{diff2\|930204443\|22:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Dennis Bratland (])"
	# {{diff2\|930156745\|16:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)}} "No reasons rooted in sources cited to justify ] issues. Nobody but ignored editor has supported this; see ]"

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|930215226\|00:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			:]
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			:"""
	is the discussion. Sennen goroshi refused to let anyone properly format the discussion, so the best thing was to simply ignore him, per ]. This was before proceeding to provoke the same battle with an entirely different editor {{u\|GoodDay}}, over indenting. Not ] to build an encyclopedia, only to fight. ] (]) 00:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
			:] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-delete3 --> ] (]) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ] (]) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: They're up to it again ] (]) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:""" ] (]) 01:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			: NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ] (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. ] (]) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
	Gaming the system because they think Misplaced Pages is their battleground. This guy picked a fight today with the politest, most Canadian editor you’d ever want to meet. Over indenting comments. Indenting. It’s all a game to him, to see who he can get one over on. ] (]) 00:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
			::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) ==
	* {{AN3\|n}} {{u\|Dennis Bratland}} did not revert the article after receiving the 3RR warning. INstead, {{u\|Sennen goroshi}} left the 3RR warning at 00:09 and filed the AN3 report at 00:15; Dennis made no edits in the interval between those events. —''']''' (]) 00:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
	::*'''Result:''' Filer blocked 31 hours by ]. ] (]) 15:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Malformed) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Battle of Saragarhi}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|120.21.47.167}}

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

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{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:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

	;Diffs of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ / ~~3RR~~ ~~warning~~:		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"

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

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

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
	;<u>Comments:</u>
	*{{AN3\|mr}}--] (]) 01:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|118.149.244.216}}

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

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268310745\|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
	# {{diff2\|930225400\|01:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1268310470\|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|930225289\|01:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1268310062\|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|930225021\|01:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1268308804\|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
	# {{diff2\|930224616\|01:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1268308036\|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"
	# {{diff2\|930223164\|01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|930222759\|01:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|930222338\|01:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|930221934\|01:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|930221084\|01:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|930218199\|00:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|930217271\|00:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|930216902\|00:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|930216467\|00:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "/* Development */"
	# {{diff2\|930215856\|00:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# {{diff2\|930225210\|01:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"


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


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

	~~Repeatedly inserting content that has been reverted by several editors. No~~ edit ~~summaries~~ or ~~response~~ on talk page ~~to messages.~~ ] (]) 01:48, 11 ~~December~~ ~~2019~~ (UTC)		Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}~~.--~~] (]) 01:54, 11 ~~December~~ ~~2019~~ (UTC)		* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Blocked, 31~~ ~~hours~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|O ~~Canada~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|2607:F2C0:E74C:67:C58B:EAA7:5979:F072}}

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	Plus 3 more since this was filled...
	9 reverts thus far with an IP rapid revision warning.
	# {{diff2\|930235559\|03:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|930235258\|03:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930235239 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|930235048\|03:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930234995 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|930234889\|03:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930234811 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|930234715\|03:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930234440 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|930234245\|03:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "/* Lyrics */"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|930234955\|03:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing. (])"

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


	;<u>Comments:</u>

	IP just blanking any message sent to them.....not here for the community. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 03:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

	* {{AN3\|b\|31 hours}} —''']''' (]) 18:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Kalhor_Kurds}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Semsûrî}}

	'''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 ] (])"
	#
	#

	'''~~Diff~~ of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> the user has reverted 4 times my edit by removing two times the sources and info which I had added and by moving the page twice and changing the name of the page. ] (]) 10:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
	:I guess it's up to the admins' interpretation on whether its two or four reverts. Admins should check the as well. --] (]) 10:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

	*'''No violation''' An editor who edited and moved the page three times is reporting an editor who edited and moved the page twice? That's slightly illogical. ], as I said at the admin noticeboard, your change is controversial and therefore you should be discussing it on the talk page (which is currently ]), not edit-warring over it. ] 13:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* {{AN3\|n}} The page has been protected to temporarily prevent moves, but there is not currently protection in place to prevent editing. —''']''' (]) 17:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Sockpuppet blocked) ==

			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)
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Everett Stern}}
			*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Sportsplex03}}
			*: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)
	;Previous version reverted to:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|930317662\|17:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|930315844\|17:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930297269 by ] (]) Without due citations, please do not change the Subjects title line. Also, there are multiple sources that lead to investigation on the SJP. Please do not utilize the platform for politically motivated messaging."
	# {{diff2\|930295816\|14:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930278524 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|930295155\|14:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930278524 by ] (]) Primefac is being intentionally contentious. This requires moderation from an UNbiased source."

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}
	# {{diff2\|930297625\|14:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|930316277\|17:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|930305546\|16:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "/* Tactical Rabbit section */"
	# {{diff2\|930313014\|17:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "/* Tactical Rabbit section */"

	*I'm with ] here. What I have not had the time to look into in detail is the COI matter. ] (]) 17:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
	**And we may have a NOTHERE block waiting to happen --certainly POV and AGF are serious issues here. ] (]) 17:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
	*This can be closed - {{u\|Bbb23}} has blocked them as a sock. Thanks. ] (]) 18:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Carter Page}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|71.190.0.231}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|930322001\|18:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "uh, yeah, no it wasn't... Horowitz is a Democrat and Obama-appointee...a sourced fact. Simply asserting "unnecessary editorial information" does not make it so. PERTINENT FACTS...like his party affiliation is all a sudden "unnecessary" when convenient. Even this Democrat Obama-appointed FBI-protecting HACK admitted wrong things done by the FBI in 2016. Durham and Barr completely disagree with the white-washed elements. Regardless, "I DON'T LIKE" is not a valid WP reason to undo. Restored at 3RR"
	# {{diff2\|930320582\|18:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "No valid explanation given at all...(against WP rules and drift) undid a contribution that is sourced and factual. No valid reason for revert, of accurate factual sourced information. "]" is not a good reason.... This is a WIKI...so "]"..... Suppression of valid facts that you don't like or that don't fit your bias or ideology is against Misplaced Pages policy and protocol."
	# {{diff2\|930319743\|18:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "no reason for revert, of valid factual sourced information. "I don't like" is not a good reason.... This is a WIKI...so "no own"..... No explanation given for accurate addition by other contributor..... restored"
	# {{diff2\|930318016\|17:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|930322045\|18:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Old warnings and comments are available in the page history, visible to everyone, even if you blank the page"

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


	;<u>Comments:</u>

	Previous 3RR warnings blanked by IP. ] (]) 18:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

	IP blocked 72 hours for personal attacks or harassment. ] (]) 20:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked ]) ==
	{{archive top\|Blocked per ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}}
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Jewish humor}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|ComedyRulesTheWorld}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|930337561\|20:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930336127 by ] (]), rv Zionist prpaganda"
	# {{diff2\|930335517\|20:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930307705 by ] (]), get consensus"
	# {{diff\|oldid=930084843\|diff=930119964\|label=Consecutive edits made from 10:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC) to 10:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|930119709\|10:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)}} "/* Antisemitic Humor */ cleaned up"
	## {{diff2\|930119964\|10:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)}} "/* Antisemitic Humor */ h>H"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|930337084\|20:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|930336583\|20:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "/* "Some Classics" section */"
	# {{diff2\|930336722\|20:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "/* "Some Classics" section */"

	;<u>Comments:</u>
	Not only are they edit warring but ] (]) 20:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

	1. This is about edit-warring and not personal attacks; that is a separate page.<br>
	2. I have read the edit-warring policies and I have not breached 3RR. Yes I have edited the page, but I have not made a 4th revert in 24 hours, or if so, it has not been demonstrated and I have not been given the chance to fix it. ] (]) 20:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

	::What part of {{tq\|Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.}} is unclear to you? ] (]) 20:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|The Grand Delusion}}

	;<u>Comments:</u>
	I usually keep track of the Nicktoons schedule and have had no problem making updates on what's airing and what's not. I usually get the information from Zap2It, which is an official TV schedule website. However, The Grand Delusion has been reverting my edits such as upcoming Christmas rerun airings of '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']'' in 2 weeks. He says that one-off airings do not count as rerun air dates, so I tried telling him that they are not one-off episodes since they are only rerun air dates and not regular run airings (as I've been keeping track of the last air dates for Nicktoons), but he still won't listen. (] (]) 21:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC))

	This report should be thrown out. There is no violation of ] anywhere here, and I feel that this report is overall in bad faith.<br />Also, Anthonyng's statement of "they are only rerun air dates and not regular run airings" contradicts his edit , where he moved the shows in question to "currently broadcast". ]<sup>(])</sup> 21:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

	* {{AN3\|no}} There has only been a single revert to the article, so there is no brightline violation of 3RR. There is also no discussion on the talk page: it hasn't been touched for over a year. {{pb}} {{mention\|Anthonyg3281}} You made a bold edit, and it was reverted. I suggest you discuss the matter on the article's talk page and work toward consensus for the change. —''']''' (]) 21:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|John and Lorena Bobbitt}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Redditor132}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' and .
			#: "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."

			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
	Editor is obviously adding their personal POV to the lead while describing the addition as solely factual and as "the most neutral possible text." Username says it all. And so does . ] (]) 01:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

	Also take note that removal by me regarding the "Years after the incident" piece is not part of my dispute with Redditor132. We have both removed that piece. That piece is in the stable version, before Redditor132's edits as IP and as the Redditor132 account. ] (]) 01:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

	I kindly ask admins to read the original and compare it to my edit, then assess which is more neutral and factual. This person wishes to keep the clearly one-sided inflammatory introduction despite it being inferior simply due to the fact it satisfies his/her point of view about the matter. Misplaced Pages should be the one place people can get facts, not be just another tabloid. ] (]) 01:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
	:You were also reverted by me and by Beauty School Dropout. ] (]) 03:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
	::{{U\|Redditor132}}, you didn't receive any traction for the edits you want to make as an an IP, or with an account. I imagine you will have a difficult time finding consensus to make said changes as they are definitely not ], despite your claims otherwise. The 3RR report was valid when made though it appears to be {{AN3\|s}} now; that being said, if you attempt to make further edits to the lead in this vein without first obtaining consensus on the talk page, I imagine a block will be forthcoming.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
	::*'''Result:''' I'm marking this report as Stale per ]. Though the reported user, ], would be making a mistake if they try to do this revert again. ] (]) 18:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Tulsi Gabbard}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Samp4ngeles}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:''' 20:59, 10 December 2019

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	# 02:31, 12 December 2019 "fixed link on this citation, which is notable given that it contradicted CDC guidance at the time. It also helps add context for anyone researching the SARS issue. It would be of interest given her presidential candidacy. Perhaps also notable given that she and her father took the same stance."
	# 02:49, 12 December 2019 "Sorry, TFD, but if you read the citation that it clearly wasn't the CDC's position -- and if you go to your own source on the talk page (the CDC link), you'll see that it said, "In the United States , where there was limited transmission of SARS-CoV during the 2003 SARS outbreak, neither individual nor population-based quarantine of contacts was recommended." See )"

	The text added back was " advocated quarantining travelers to Hawaii who had symptoms of ]."

	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' 22:05, 10 December 2019

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />		<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
			Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
	The article is under 1RR. The editor was previously warned and reported about edit-warring on this article and received a warning from an administrator. I asked the editor to revert but they refused to do so. ] (]) 03:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b}} – 24 hours for violation of the 1RR. The user was asked to self-revert but declined to do so. ] (]) 18:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Dumbo}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Honest Yusuf Cricket}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	# (14:46, 11 December 2019)
	# (22:00, 10 December 2019)
	# (21:59, 10 December 2019)
	# (01:20, 9 December 2019)
	# (22:56, 7 December 2019)

	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

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

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	] is making a substantial addition to the "Controversy" section in which it states the crows are accused of being stereotypes of African-Americans. He's made useful additions like the name of the leader being changed sometime ago and posting some commentary sources defending the characters. However, he insists on posting an entire text of an essay from a former Disney animator named ] who denies the crows are harmful stereotypes. I have attempted to mitigate his edits by posting only the main gist of the essay. However, ever single time, Yusuf Cricket has reverted my and other users' edits and re-posted the entire text the way he wants it.

	Basically, his additions, as well-intentioned as they are, make that section particularly read long and cluttered. It also gives more weight to the defending side when I feel violates our neutrality rules. Yusuf Cricket has been told numerous times by other editors on their talk page to stop being non-constructive and I attempted to discuss with him on the article's talk page, but received no response. He's already surpassed the three no-revert rule. ] (]) 04:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

	:<span class="template-ping">@]:</span> I don't see where they have crossed the three reverts ''in 24 hours'' brightline. That said, there needs to be some discussion on the talk page. Thank you for starting one about the crows. Please consider bringing in more voices with a request for comment or for a third option if the discussion stalls. I have advised HYC that if they do not engage in discussion and a consensus emerges, they could be reverted for going against the consensus. —''']''' (]) 16:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

	::<span class="template-ping">@]:</span> That's only because I didn't revert quickly enough and I also didn't want to become participatory in edit warring. It's been going for almost a week ago and I'm nearly fed with the user. HYC has made no attempt to discuss his changes despite being directed to on his talk page, and I see again HYC has reverted the changes I made last night.

	::I'll hold out a little while longer, but based on his edit history, HYC wants to keep his changes no matter what. ] (]) 17:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Kingdome}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|108.30.105.141}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Larry Hockett}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|930400974\|06:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930279865 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|930276228\|11:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930257248 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|930257173\|07:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|930253149\|06:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930128486 by ] (]) unexplained removal"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|930401833\|06:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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

			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.
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			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 ].
	This seems to be a general problem for this IP - I assume ], since all the edits to several pages are to point to the same blog. ] (]) 06:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
	:This is a dispute over whether this link -- -- is valid or not. ] (]) 07:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
	::I'm sorry if I got carried away. The edits came across to me as blatant spam (especially given the lack of explanation for why this personal web page represented an exception under ] #1 and #11). I see now that removing spam is not really an exemption from 3RR. ] (]) 11:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
	:::<span class="template-ping">@]:</span> On the one hand, it's not enumerated on ] as an exception to the brightline. On the other hand, the correct place to report obvious spam is ], the vandalism noticeboard. In future, report spammers there. —''']''' (]) 16:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	seems a might suspicious: welcoming a newly created user account with zero (0) edits. --] \| ] 15:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	* {{AN3\|d}}
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	** In the case of the IP, because it has gone quiet for several hours, and because there's no evidence it's a static IP, I'm not going to block the IP.
	**In the case of {{u\|Larry Hockett}}, who was added to the report by the IP, I'm going to err on the side of ] that he thought reverting blatant spam was a 3RR exception. For future occurrences, the user is advised to report the spam at ] and not cross the 3RR brightline.
	:Additonally, I'm watching the ] article and would not hesitate to block the IP for spam if they were to readd the link without gaining consensus at the talk page or if there is further edit warring. —''']''' (]) 16:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: