Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:01, 29 December 2019 editEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,806 edits →User:Hunan201p reported by User:Beshogur (Result: ): no violation← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:55, 9 January 2025 edit undoCNMall41 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers70,492 edits Adding new report for Shecose.Tag: Twinkle 
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 = 401 |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&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|TERF}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Newimpartial}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Chance997}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# #
# #
#
(Article is under 1RR, see below. The two reverts were within 25.5 hours, which is obviously gaming the system.)
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' Not really applicable to 1RR. Just one revert isn't edit warring, so how would one know to give a warning? And by the time another happens, it's already a 1RR violation. If a warning from me is required for a block, that means that the edit warrior gets a 2nd revert for free and 1RR is toothless, since the warning only happens after the 2nd revert. Or, if I can still report after the 2nd revert, then the warning is totally superfluous to this report. Anyway, this editor does know better. See below. <small>(clarified)</small>


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' (ongoing discussion) '''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> <br />
The article is under 1RR. This was clearly advertised on the talk page until a few hours ago when it was removed by another editor in good faith. The dispute involves an ] - a 2018 draft paper. The apparent consensus of a discussion about the SPS was against inclusion, so the draft paper and 3 other SPS were removed, and nobody restored them for 6 days. Ignoring ], not bothering to get a consensus first, and intent on getting their favored content into the article, Newimpartial's two reverts consist of restoring the removed draft paper, the first time with the three other SPS, and the second time by itself. Note that this editor has already been blocked once for 31 hours for edit warring in July, so any block this time should be longer. ] (]) 19:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC) (clarified) ] (]) 22:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
: Without expressing an opinion on the merits, just noting in passing the irrelevancy of a TP notice, and that the article page has had ] which includes <nowiki>{{Ds/editnotice|1RR|topic=gg}}</nowiki> since June. ] (]) 21:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Adding: In case anyone doubts that edit warring is an ongoing problem with this editor, note what they themselves said less than 2 weeks ago regarding their behavior on a different article that is under 3RR: {{tq|it is certainly within my rights to revert up to three times...}} They had in fact done that, which is why they're defending it, and they are wrong because ] says, {{tq|The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times}}. ] (]) 23:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "<code><nowiki>a ] containing an ] alien ]</nowiki></code>" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the ]). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, ] and ], citing ] as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. ] '''''<small style="font-size:70%;">(])</small>''''' 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Comment by Newimpartial -''' I would just point out that the second so-called "revert" was in fact a compromise, restoring one specific source for policy-compliant reasons rather than simply reverting the large-scale removal of sourced content by Crossroads. I don't think any such compromise can plausibly be considered "gaming the system", but I invite scrutiny and constructive suggestions for my editing, as always. ] (]) 01:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at ] to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Additional comment by Newimpartial''' This entire report actually strikes me as a kind of reprisal for the interaction between us recorded on Crossroads's talk page , when I opted to share a template rather than reporting Crossroads for an actual 1RR violation. Somehow he found this to be grounds for offense, though I cannot say how. But again, I am here fully receptive to enlightenment... ] (]) 01:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::The "sourced content" that Newimpartial is referring to is sourced to a blog, a personal webpage, a YouTube video (seriously), and an unpublished draft paper. Their "compromise" is just them focusing on their favorite source, and no "policy-compliant" reason requires it to be there. Their gaming the system is evident by the fact they reverted just after 24 hours had passed. I have to thank them for reminding me that they did the same thing with the same exact content in September, two reverts to restore it in 26 hours: My supposed 1RR violation involved completely different content between the two edits, and was a mistake for which I offered to self-revert (but I had already been reverted and I still think Newimpartial was misinterpreting 1RR). I'm not even sure they were reverts rather than bold edits. Anyway, it is clear that this editor knows about 1RR and violates it to save this draft paper that they love. Just because a few hours have passed does not mean this should be marked as "stale", either. ] (]) 02:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
::: The "second revert" Crossroads is faulting me for is not sourced to a blog or a personal webpage, or a YouTube video, so none of these are relevant to the supposed 1RR violation. The "second revert" only adds back the draft paper bearing directly on the topic and written by published academic experts in the relevant field (linguistics of slurs) and is therefore definitely policy compliant to include, ahead of the op-ed commentary by non-experts which Crossroads is constantly at pains to introduce when it agrees with their POV. The discussion on the Talk page has not shown any objection to the inclusion of the paper in question by anyone who actually understands ] and ], the latter of which Crossroads . I could go on. :) ] (]) 02:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
::::Not relevant, this is a behavior forum, and your description is a gross distortion which I won't get into to save space. Let's focus on the issue: <u>Newimpartial is a habitual edit warrior whose behavior needs to be addressed.</u> ] (]) 03:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
{{an3|w}}. I consider this a violation, but it's not one I enforce on first offences (first time of a borderline duration between reverts, that is). But, certainly, please don't just wait an hour and a half to revert, Newimpartial. Yes, the brightline rule is there for a reason, but ] it in a procedural sense is going to be viewed harshly by many admins and is likely to result in sanctions next time (it certainly will if I see it). Anyway, try to give yourself a ''comfortable'' (I won't define it) few hours. But anything less than ''hours'' (plural) is simply not up to par. That said, if the edit wasn't really being objected to on substance but only in order to report the user so that they are sanctioned, that is a much greater gaming violation. But I can't tell whether this is so (arguably, that claim is an ]), despite Newimpartial argument that it may be the case. So the facts concerning the two edits being reverts is the only thing considered in the closing of this request. ] 04:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
:I do object to the edit itself. That is why I reported it. It is just this editor again out-reverting everyone else to keep their preferred content. ] (]) 04:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2024 United Kingdom general election}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ToadGuy101}}
;Page: {{pagelinks|U.S. Route 2 in Washington}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA}}


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


;Diffs of the user's reverts: '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|932554030|19:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 932553505 by ] (]) This is clearly not disruptive editing. Rather it is edit-warring. Stop warring and stop ] and discuss instead" # {{diff2|1267771905|16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|932551785|19:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 932471323 by ] (]) I'm being serious this time. Stop edit-warring now or an admin may intervene." # {{diff2|1267757010|14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])Stop whining about him"
# {{diff2|1267751151|14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff|oldid=932382440|diff=932383906|label=Consecutive edits made from 13:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC) to 13:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|1267747621|13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|932383354|13:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930245131 by ] (]) Remember I would like to remind you that from this revert you are not to revert from status quo ante bellum. No more warring. Okay."
## {{diff2|932383906|13:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Updated archive link for RDP to last snapshot before the link went dead"


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|932554573|19:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])" # {{diff2|1267751597|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|1267301347|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"


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


User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
;<u>Comments:</u>
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==
It appears that a content dispute between an IPv6 user and a registered user is occuring once again on ]. Page was protected in the past involving another dispute which stemmed from the same two users. ] ] 19:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Page semiprotected one month by ]. As to the matter in dispute, SounderBruce says "Arbitrarily updating the citation access-dates without having a corresponding change in the content cited or a significant change in the cited webpage is deceptive to readers and editors". The protecting admin, ], has commented in more detail at ]. The IP editor has filed this issue at ]. Maybe there is some current practice on whether these access dates should be updated when nothing is known to have changed since the last access? The IP's persistence on this issue is puzzling though I don't know if it's an explicit policy violation. ] (]) 05:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1000mods}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mindxeraser}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Karlie Kloss}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Abbymsmall }}


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

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

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

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

<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
{{AN3|b|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Fernanda Torres}}

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1267808569|20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
#
# {{diff2|1267807858|20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
#
# {{diff2|1267807213|20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
#
# {{diff2|1267806982|20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
#
# {{diff2|1267806103|20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1267807698|20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing (])"
# {{diff2|1267808131|20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing (])"


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' This is a long-running dispute, and sockpuppetry is not out of the question: ], ], ]


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Abbymsmall's edits include multiple articles with long-running disputes over models' measurements. I've not kept track of any sockpuppets or attempts to address these problems on a multi-article scale. --] (]) 02:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
{{an3|b|24 hours}}. ] 04:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
{{AN3|b|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


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


;Page: {{pagelinks|Alcor Life Extension Foundation}} '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|47.26.218.18}}


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1267452946|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|1267525585|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|932668925|14:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! (])" # {{diff2|1267644988|01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (])"
# {{diff2|932670454|14:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])" # {{diff2|1267646582|01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ Reply"
# {{diff2|932670772|14:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Warning: Vandalism on ]. (])"


;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff|oldid=1267699885|diff=1267736737|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} (by {{u|BusterD}}) ] (]) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
;<u>Comments:</u>


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
IP has been reverted for removing cited information by several editors on a ] topic. ] (]) 14:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
:Please stop edit warring and trying to state that I am, it's not funny. When someone removes non-credible sources from POV opinion columns, that does not constitute vandalism. Please review Misplaced Pages's policy on Edit War and please refrain from doing so in the future. ] (]) 14:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}}.--] (]) 15:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for BLP issues) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Babar Azam}}
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
;User being reported: {{userlinks|94.173.120.38}}
# {{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:'''
;Previous version reverted to:


;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|932689874|17:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "content being removed again even though it is true and relevant"
# {{diff2|932689626|16:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid removal"
# {{diff2|932689476|16:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverting changes made by user ilnord"
# {{diff2|932689278|16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverting changes made"
# {{diff|oldid=932688569|diff=932689016|label=Consecutive edits made from 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC) to 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|932688988|16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverted page back from removal of relevant information"
## {{diff2|932689016|16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|932687136|16:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Added back relevant content after someone decided to remove It"


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|932688647|16:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (])"
# {{diff2|932689807|17:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring. (])"


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


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
;<u>Comments:</u>
*{{AN3|blocked|31 hours}} ] (]) 17:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
*{{AN3|ab}} ''']''' <small> &#124; ]</small> 13:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indef) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Second Battle of Panipat}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mi6pro}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
# (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:'''

<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 />

] (]) 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.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{AN3|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''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"
#
# {{diff2|1268002110|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
#
# {{diff2|1267995715|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
#
# {{diff2|1267994453|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' '''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:''' Mi6pro has chosen not to use the talk page.
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

'''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:'''

<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <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))
*'''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)

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

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

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

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''

'''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 */"

'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."

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

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

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

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

'''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:'''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Mi6pro is just another of a long list of editors/IPs that have been attacking India related battles. This nonsense has been going on since mid-November, involving multiple IPs, "new users", etc. --] (]) 04:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|indef}} ''']''' <small> &#124; ]</small> 13:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


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


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
;Page: {{pagelinks|Indian classical music}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|SwarSadhak}}


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


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
*


:]
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
:"""
*
:] 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."
::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: ) ==
User blocked on December 17 for edit warring on this page. ] <small>(])</small> 16:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
User also edit warring on ]. ] <small>(])</small> 16:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}.--] (]) 16:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Onam}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|DBigXray}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Previous version reverted to: (first revert)
# {{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 the user's reverts: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
#Second revert {{diff2|932932062|01:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): These POV edits need consensus. stop edit warring. (TW)"
#Third revert {{diff2|932930882|01:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): No consensus for these changes on the talk (TW)"
#Fourth revert {{diff2|932930145|01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): No consensus for these changes on the talk page. stop edit warring (TW)"


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|932930419|01:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])" # {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|932930260|01:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)}} "/* Onam festival */ r"


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


:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
DBigXray has made four reverts within 24 hours. The later reverts were made while ignoring my explanation/comments on the article's talk page. ] (]) 01:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
: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)
:{{u|Ms Sarah Welch}}, you are adding pov content that has serious issues instead of working for consensus of your addition you are more intent on edit warring and filing block requests to get others blocked, first at ANI and next day here at ANEW This is extremely disappointing, coming from an experienced editor.
: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)
:And where did I make 4 I see 3 diffs above.
:::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)
:@closing admin, in spite of the IP raising questions on her addition of pov content trying to convert it into a Hindu festival, instead of answering she is evading discussion /consensus. On top of that she is using offensive edit summary where she states "'''consensus with vandalism/disruptive editors is unnecessary'''". The filer has made an equal number of reverts. I think some action is needed here. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 01:59, 29 December 2019 (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)


== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
::1st: 08:49, 26 December 2019; DBigXray (talk | contribs) Your edit summary: (RV some major POV edits with cherry picked sources that shifted the WP:NPOV balance of the article, discuss this on the talk page.)
::2nd: 01:17, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk page. stop edit warring (TW)
::3rd: 01:22, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk (TW)
::4th: 01:30, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): These POV edits need consensus. stop edit warring. (TW)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
::Not only that, your reverts deleted sources, sourced content and misrepresent the source in Cultural Festival section by inserting content that is not supported by the Ponnumuthan source. Your edits suggest you are ]. ] (]) 02:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
:::: {{ec}} {{re|Ms Sarah Welch}} DBigXray's edits do ''not'' suggest they are NOTHERE. No more ]; they don't help you, and they may get you in trouble.--] (]) 02:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|Ms Sarah Welch}}, you are falsely claiming that i made "four reverts within 24 hours.". The time stamps clearly show that this is a blatant lie. And FYI, trying to get others blocked with ] doesn't  really work with established editors. ''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 02:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
{{an3|nv}}. I count only three reverts in 24 hours (you need ''four'' to violate ]). But beyond that, this acrimony between you two is starting to become a problem. Do we need to implement an ], or can you two learn to work together in a collegial way? Please let me know. ] 11:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
:] Sufficient talk page warnings were given on User talk:Ms Sarah Welch and yet she continued with her disruptive reverts , , and after hitting 3 reverts she promptly filed this ANEW report with lies that 4 reverts were made. It is quite obvious that her intentions were to weaponize Admin Noticeboards to get the other editor sanctioned as a way to evade ].  ] she is continuously attacking me and then running to admin noticeboards for getting sanctions, this ridiculous and childish behavior has to stop. My only intention is to work towards a Consensus version and it is not me who is trying to get the other editor blocked, so this is false analogy about the two. It is obvious to see which one has malicious intentions. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 11:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
::You repeatedly use the word "lie," which further adds to the acrimony — I challenge that, rather, you should ] that mistakes were made rather than ''lying'' outright. ] 11:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
:::Alright ], I agree that I must assume Good faith and I should rather consider that "mistakes were made" by her in counting the reverts. Now can you address this obvious one sided ] that she is carrying out against me. As you are aware this is the second time, she has done this. Shouldn't this type of offensive behavior that is against collaborative editing be addressed ? --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 11:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
::::I am aware. And I hold a dim view of it. ] 11:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{u|El C}}, ok lets see if the "dim view" helps the situation. A ] IMHO will certainly be more effective in discouraging these attempts for block shopping. regards. ''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 12:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ashina tribe}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hunan201p}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


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

Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}

'''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:'''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
First time it was changed to "unknown" was made by an ip user. (), since then Hunan201p is removing sourced content and saying "Leave it alone for now.", saying that I should leave an article alone like he is an admin. I added sources, however he is still not convinced. Also claiming ] is "is a syncretic religion that may have been *altered* by Ashina.". This is nothing more but ]. ] (]) 10:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
::The final sentence in this paragraph is inaccurate. I did not claim that Tengrism is a syncretic religion altered by the Ashina tribe; I suggested Beshogur's own source said that. My position has been that this is a very sketchy, grey area subject matter and that the article needs to be left alone until there is a discussion involving multiple users at the talk page (including Beshogur) until we reach consensus on the ethnic language of Ashina. He has thus far refused my suggestions.


::Most of his edits appear to be geared toward the Turkicization of this ancient ethnic group. He initially attempted to delete several references from the page (on 20:45, 10 December 2019) which supported an Iranian origin for these people, by erroneously claiming their authors did not advocate such a position. He also added a flurry of "citation needed" tags ahead of statements related to these authors, which had in fact already been cited. After I reverted this, he tried it again, and another user (Wario-Man) then reverted those edits on December 25 for a second time, and suggested that he knock it off, as the article itself is being re-written anyway.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
::More recently, on 11:01, 28 December 2019, he falsified a reference to support the claim that these people spoke Old Turkic; something he apparently acknowledges having done, as he didn't put it back after I reverted it. Very suspicious behavior indeed, and I don't believe I violated the 3 revert rule, which should not apply in such situations, if I remember correctly. I'm confident my revisions were reasonable. Beshogur seems to be in a rush to complete a project that is under construction, all by himself, using very questionable building materials.] (]) 11:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
:::Ashina is not an ethnic group but a ruling clan and a tribe. I am adding sources and you are reverting it. I don't add false sources. You said: "In fact, page 64 of this book does not contain any reference to the Ashina tribe, and suggests the official language of the very diverse East Turkic Empire/Second Turkic Khaganate was Orkhon. Nowhere does it suggest that this was ethnic language of the Ashina tribe." Ashina is not an ethnic group as I said, it is a clan. Also where does it say that ] is "very diverse"? I also added sources on the talk page that ] was made by the kaghans' itself. How can you claim that they never spoke Turkic? "...some scholars see this practice as amounting to a state religion, “Tengrism,” in which the ruling Ashina family gained legitimacy through its support from Tengri.", can you please tell me how this is not a valid text? This is nothing but ]. ] (]) 12:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{an3|nv}}. Only three reverts are listed — you need ''four'' to violate ]. Also, this is not the place to discuss the content dispute. Please pursue ] (and ]) to resolve the dispute. ] 13:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:55, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Chance997 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: Blocked one week)

    Page: Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Chance997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

    Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "a ] containing an ] alien ]" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words "red-striped black hedgehog" at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the fictional hedgehog in question). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, User:Carlinal and User:Barry Wom, citing MOS:OVERLINK as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at Sonic the Hedgehog 2 to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:ToadGuy101 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: 2024 United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: ToadGuy101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267757647 by CipherRephic (talk)"
    2. 14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267751974 by John (talk)Stop whining about him"
    3. 14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267747738 by Czello (talk)"
    4. 13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2024 United Kingdom general election."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"

    Comments:

    User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. Belbury (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Mindxeraser reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)

    Page: 1000mods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mindxeraser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:
    Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 reported by User:DandelionAndBurdock (Result: /64 blocked two weeks)

    Page: Fernanda Torres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
    2. 20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
    3. 20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
    4. 20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
    5. 20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Blocked – for a period of two weeks The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Csknp reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Page already protected)

    Page: Template:Twenty20 competitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    2. 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio

    Comments: This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. Vestrian24Bio 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... Vestrian24Bio 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Vandalism

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    User:80.200.232.89 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

    Categories: