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 20:54, 8 June 2008 view sourceTragedyStriker (talk \| contribs)387 edits →User:TragedyStriker reported by User:Kww (Result: )← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:46, 24 January 2025 view source Zinnober9 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers52,996 editsm Wiki-link in external-link syntax error addressed
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	{{moveprotected\|small=yes}}
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	</noinclude>
			{{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 = 74		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~72h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	__TOC__
	=Violations=
	:Please place ] {{highlight\|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can for it.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected indef) ==
	<!--
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of religious slurs}}
	-->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Xuangzadoo}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 8 hours) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Brian Cook}}. {{3RRV\|Reezy}}: Time reported: 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: - user continues to insert obvious copyvio image.
			# {{diff2\|1270068423\|19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
			# {{diff2\|1270041541\|16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
			# {{diff2\|1270039369\|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
			# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
			# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1270041824\|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1270040704\|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
	*2nd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1270045411\|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
	*{{AN3\|bb\|8 hours}} Both images are available under free licenses so there is no copyright issue, and both the reporter and the reportee have made four reverts. ] (]) 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
	**I've unblocked Mosmof as the image page of the image he was reverting had copyvio tags on it at the time, so it is reasonable to assume that he thought he was reverting a copyvio. Reezy remains blocked. ] (]) 09:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
	***It's besides the point, but I should point out that I didn't ''think'' I was reverting a copyvio, I was reverting . --] (]) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

			All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 2x 24 hour blocks) ==

			:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
	*1st revert:
			:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
	*2nd revert:
			:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	*3rd revert:
			:: You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - ] (]) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	*3RR warning:
			:: More reverts , can someone do something? - ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*4th revert:
			::: {{AN3\|p}} I also note the user has been alerted to CTOPS, which I protected the page under, so there will be no room for argument if this behavior continues. ] (]) 23:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==
	*This user has the same 4 reverts on the article. Their warning was made in the middle of my own fourth revert, which I apologize for. All parties have been warned and I expect the edit war will cease. ] (]) 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' ] <br />
	:Malformed report. Anyway, both users blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. ]] 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Kelvintjy}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Cahokia}}. {{3RRV\|Marburg72}}: Time reported: 23:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230019964
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230184562

	*Previous version reverted to:

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:		'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelvintjy

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
	User has been around for a while, he should probably know better than this. Of note also are several accusations of racism that an admin may want to take into account.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
	:{{AN3\|declined}} Whilst the editor has been around for about 10 months, he has made less than 100 edits in that time and thus I would not regard him as experienced. Since he has not performed a revert since he was warned of the 3-revert-rule, I would not be prepared to block unless he made a further reversion. ] (]) 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->

			Hello
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
			the user Kelvintjy has been engaged in another war last summer and was banned from the ] page. He's been pursuing an edit war on the ] page too without daring give explanations on the talk page though he was invited to do it many times. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			*{{AN3\|s}} ] (]) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@] you blocked this user from the page ] in Aug. 2024 for the same reasons. ] (]) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:You also block Raoul but later unblocked him after he made his appeal. ] (]) 00:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			I don't understand the user always keep targeting me. I am more of a silence contributor. I had seen how the complainant had argue with other contributor in other talk page and after a while the complainant stay silent and not touching certain topic and instead keep making edit on articles related to ] or ]. Now, he is making a lot of edit on ]. ] (]) 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	*] violation on {{Article\|Political positions of Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV\|209.142.181.172}}: Time reported: 23:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Elon Musk}}
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ergzay}}
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			# {{diff2\|1270885082\|18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Reverting for user specifying basically ] as their reasoning"
			# {{diff2\|1270881666\|18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) I believe you have reverted this edit in error so I am adding it back. Rando tweet from a random organization? The Anti-defamation league is cited elsewhere in this article and this tweet was in the article previously. I simply copy pasted it from a previous edit. ADL is a trusted source in the perennial source list ]"
			# {{diff2\|1270878417\|17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Removing misinformation"
			# {{diff2\|1270875037\|17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
			# {{diff2\|1270724963\|23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Revert, this is not the purpose of the short description"
			# {{diff2\|1270718517\|22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Elon is not a multinational"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*This user is adding inappropriately POV material to the article and reverting any attempts to remove it. --] (]) 23:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270879182\|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small\|(edit: corrected diff)}}

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] ] ] ] &spades; 02:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270885380\|18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" {{small\|(edit: added diff, fix date)}}

	== ] reported by ] (Result: both users blocked, 10 hours) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Bad Religion}}. {{3RRV\|Johan Rachmaninov‎}}: Time reported: 00:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			Breach of ] {{small\|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

			] seems to be making a mistake here as several of those edits were of different content. You can't just list every single revert and call it edit warring. And the brief edit warring that did happen stopped as I realized I was reverting the wrong thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1270879523 ] (]) 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	#
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 216998019 by Alex 101 (talk) Someone needs to read the policy on OR")</small>
	#
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 217176589 by Alex 101 (talk) No OR")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 217196176 by Alex 101 (talk)")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/Undid revision 217196176 by Alex 101 (talk)")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 217335707 by Alex 101 (talk)")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk) Undid per WP:NORN")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 217420991 by Alex 101 (talk) No")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 217427324 by Alex 101 (talk) How is vandalism if i have a source?")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 217429778 by Alex 101 (talk) it Dosn't matter what you think. Again, read WP:NORN")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")</small>

			:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	] has repeatedly been edit warring with me on the ] page by changing the band's genre. He keeps changing their genre ] to ]. Bad Religion is actually a hardcore punk band, not a pop punk band and they are not ], ], ], ] and ], who all use that genre. He's been doing this for two days and he won't stop. I've really had enough of it. Earlier today, I already sent a ] in a way to stop this argument. So please, ban this guy without delay; he has a bad habit of not listening to me when I ask him to stop what he's doing.
			::@] So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. ] (]) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::]: {{tq\|An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.}} – ] (]) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. ] (]) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. ] (]) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::]: {{tq\|There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons}}. – ] (]) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. ] (]) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. ] (]) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
			:The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. ] (]) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. ] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording followed by after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. ] (]) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::What is a CTOP? ] (]) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::A CTOP is a ]. ] (]) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages.}} If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. ] (]) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. ] (]) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This is an incorrect characterization of the discussion. The people you were edit warring with said, correctly, that he was accused of having made what looks like the Nazi salute. As you know from the video and the sources provided, this is objectively correct. You just don't like the fact that reliable sources said this about him. Nobody is trying to put "Elon Musk is a Nazi" in the article. ] (]) 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Based on the comment in response to the notification for this discussion, {{tq\|"I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it"}}, I was quite surprised to see that the editor didn't acquire an understanding of 3RR when in 2020. That's sometime ago granted, but additionally a lack of awareness of CTOP, when there is an edit notice at Musk's page regarding BLP policy, is highly suggestive of ]. This in addition to the 3RR warning that was ignored, followed by continuing to revert other editors, and eventually arguing that it must be because I am wrong. If there is an essay based on "Everyone else must be wrong because I'm always right" I'd very much like to read it. As for this report, I primarily wanted to nip the edit war in the bud which appears to have worked for now, given the talk page warning failed to achieve anything. I otherwise remain concerned about the general ] based indicators; disruptive editing, battleground attitude, and lack of willingness to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner. ] (]) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given that ''some'' of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that covers ''all'' edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with the ''letter'', but not the ''spirit'', of 3RR (In other words, another case of ])) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS. ] (]) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::We are likely to see Ergzay at ANI at some point. But as I was thinking of asking for 1RR early today; I'm fine with that decision. ] (]) 00:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Good decision. I otherwise think a final warning for edit warring is appropriate, given the 3RR violation even excluding BLPREMOVE reverts (first 4 diffs to be specific). There's nothing else to drag out here given Ergzay intends to take a step back from the Musk article, and per above, there is always the ANI route for any future incidents. ] (]) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] My statement that you quoted there is because I'm a divisive person and people often don't like how I act on Misplaced Pages and the edits I make. People have dragged me to this place several times in the past over the years and I've always found it reasonably fair against people who are emotionally involved against dragging me down. That is why I said what I did. And as to the previous warning that you claim was me "not getting it", that was 3 reverts of the same material, and with a name 3RR the association is automatic. Edit: And I'll additionally add, I'm most certainly interested in building an accurate encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources. I'm still very happy to use sources that exist and they should be used whenever possible, but in this modern day and age of heavily politicized and biased media, editors more than ever need to have wide open eyes and use rational thinking. ] (]) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"''Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources''" See ]. ] (]) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::And ], while you're at it. ] (]) 19:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"Use wide open eyes and use rational thinking (as defined by me)" seems to implicate ], as well. ] (]) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected one week; IP range blocked two weeks) ==
	:{{AN3\|bothblocked\|10 hours}} ] (]) 01:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
	<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Paul Cézanne}}
	== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: Stale. ) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|203.115.14.139}}
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV\|Andyvphil}}: Time reported: 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ revert "bold" deletion of Ayers")</small>
			# {{diff\|oldid=1271008210\|diff=1271008905\|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ Claim that there is consensus to omit Ayers from this article is bogus.")</small>
			## {{diff2\|1271008695\|06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	# <small>(edit summary: "undo deletions performed by edit warring hagiographers")</small>
			## {{diff2\|1271008905\|06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1271007344\|06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1271006989\|06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			#

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Although not strictly a violation of ] (the editor in question waited 24 hours and 10 minutes before performing the same revert again), this is still a clear case of edit warring (the reason for 3RR in the first place), and for exactly the same material as he was . These particular edits are both contentious and tendentious, and violate ]. -- ] (]) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1271008376\|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
			# {{diff2\|1271010383\|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:Actually, the third revert wouldn't have violated 3RR even if were within 24 hours of the first. Takes four to do that, so there was no reason for me to "wait". I just happpen to get in from work about the same time every day. Anyway, if you look at the talk page you will find that Scjessey offered seven alternatives for the treatment of Bill Ayers in ] and got virtually no support for his preferred option (#1) of no mention at all of the former Weatherman in Obama's bio. Despite the ongoing discussion and majority opposition to his course of action (even Scjessey had given up on #1 in favor of an excessively anodyne #3) Shem decided it was time to initiate ] by deleting all mention of Ayers from the page.. BRD of course allows for "R" (my first edit above) as well as "B" and is supposed to be followed by "D", not immediate repetition of "B" until it sticks. Both Kossak4Truth and I have restored Ayers to the page, and the minority of editors (the poll was quite clear in it's result -- "no mention" got maybe two votes out of about 20) who want no mention of Ayers have edit warred it off. And as I speak, it is still off, since I won't violate 3RR (and indeed have not violated 2RR) to restore it. A sockpuppet IP reported me for "violating 3RR" a bit further up this page on the basis of '''one''' revert, and now Scjessey wants me blocked for three (not four) in 25. He has himself made three reverts in the last 17 hours. He is clearly engaging in knowing abuse of process...as can be seen by examining Scjessey's own edits:

	# <small>(edit summary: "rm original research")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Campaign */ - restored original section title of "U.S. Senate campaign" - weird that it should've been changed in the first place")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 217381741 by ] - restore image order (can't have people's backs facing text, looks weird)")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* External links */ rm absolutely ludicrous categories")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 217474873 by ] (]) - rv category insanity")</small>
	:] (]) 14:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	I think an article ban would be better than blocking. Andyvphil, you haven't had one '''single''' edit that lasted. You've been reverted by '''numerous''' users. Do you think it's time to quit (editing that article, I don't mean Misplaced Pages)? There must be '''something''' wrong with your edits if you're being reverted all the time. Not everyone is a '''vandal''' or an '''edit warrer''', do you realise this? No violation by either but I think a voluntary article ban for both user's would save them from being blocked. ]] 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
			*This is straight-up vandalism. {{U\|BusterD}} semi-protected the article for one week, and I've blocked ] for two weeks.--] (]) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I'm sorry, but even a cursory glance at the edit summaries of my edits above will see there is no edit warring on my part. Two of those edits concern minor formatting issues, and the other two concern miscategorizations. Furthermore, you will see from the article's ] that I am engaged in a lengthy consensus-building exercise, ''which I initiated'', and in which Andyvphil has taken almost no part it. I filed this report because Andyvphil was obstructing the consensus-building process with identical contentious edits concerning the material being discussed, rather than revert any of those edits myself. -- ] (]) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Reported user had self-reverted before the report was made) ==
	Yes, I'm sure your reverts were good reverts and my reverts were bad reverts. In your mind.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Droop quota}}
	Noroton has for several weeks vigorously pursued the dispute resolution process and has been tireless in refuting the bogus arguments of Scjessey and others that it is somehow inappropriate to clearly describe Ayers in "Obama's" article. There is little reason for me to duplicate his thankless and unrewarded effort, though I have chimed in where I have had something to add.

	To repeat, as I've pointed out, since Scjessey offered seven options for treating Ayers in the Early Life section of ] (which was ''not'' how the subject came to be discussed, contrary to Scjessey's implication) both the mention there and the mention in the Presidential Campaign sections have been removed by the hagigraphic clique which "owns" the article with no regard for the ongoing discussion of how to treat the subject, which discussion has decisively rejected Scjessey's preferred option of deleting all mention of Ayers. I's been six months since the clique first deleted my contribution to the article of the information, cited to the ''NYTimes'', that Obama's pastor and church were Afrocentric and highly political (this was before the videos hit and brought the significance of those facts to national attention) and I've had plenty of time to conclude that AGF-based effort is wasted on the likes of Scjessey. I'm obliged by the rules of Misplaced Pages not to say what I really think of them, but I'm not obliged to conceed their ownership of the page. ] (]) 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
	:If nobody plans on doing anything here, I'm going to suggest closing it as moot, since 24 hours has passed and neither party has edited the article. --] (]) 12:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	::I have every intention of restoring mention of Ayers name to Barack Obama, in accord with NPOV. Not mentioning Ayers has only minority support, but I would not be dissuaded even if the local claque of Obama campaign volunteers mustered a local majority. "Rough consensus" is determined after examaining the qualty of the arguments, and theirs are indefensible. ] (]) 07:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|68.150.205.46}}
	:::Well I don't think I've ever seen such an emphatic declaration of the intent to edit war before. Incredible arrogance. -- ] (]) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::You're in the minority, Scjessey. You cannot claim consensus. Furthermore, Anonymous Dissident (an admin) has clearly stated that the material can be included without violating ] if neutrally written and reliably sourced. Since you wrote Options No. 2 through No. 6 on Ayers, I think you'll concede that they're neutrally written and there is abundant RS material out there. The only problem is deciding which of the multitude of reliable sources should be cited, and taking care of edit warring POV pushers like you. ] (]) 13:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	This is stale unless someone wishes to submit a new report with fresh diffs. And, guys, please take the discussion elsewhere. ]] 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined, request review) ==
			# {{diff\|oldid=1271015536\|diff=1271021273\|label=Consecutive edits made from 08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1271020237\|08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			## {{diff2\|1271021017\|08:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			## {{diff2\|1271021273\|08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1271014641\|07:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "there is no consensus in talk. there is no government election today that uses your exact Droop. it is not what Droop says his quota was"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Carl Freer}}. {{3RRV\|Truthmaker1}}: Time reported: 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			# {{diff2\|1270714484\|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ reply to Quantling"
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
			# {{diff2\|1270714531\|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit reply to Quantling"
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
			# {{diff2\|1270714949\|22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ addition"
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
			# {{diff2\|1270715070\|22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit addition"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			User has been edit-warring for the past 9 months to try and reinsert incorrect information into the article, despite repeatedly having had this mistake corrected, and a consensus of 5 separate editors against these changes. Request page ban from ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 22:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			:{{u\|Closed Limelike Curves}}, the user appears to have self-reverted less than an hour after their last edit warring continuation, and 14 hours before your report. ] (]) 00:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			::Thanks, I missed that (I didn't notice the last edit was a self-revert). ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:68.150.205.46, thanks for self-reverting. Can you agree not to re-add the same material until a real consensus is found? An ] could help. ] (]) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely) ==
	:{{AN3\|declined}} The user in question is reverting away from a version of the article that has a clear negative slant and in which undue weight in this short article is given to criticism of the subject. Consequently, his reverts are exempt from the 3-revert-rule. See ] and ]. However, this is not a cut-and-dried case and I invite further review. ] (]) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
	::'''Comment.''' This article has been controversial for BLP reasons, but I don't see Truthmaker1's repeated removal of the reference to the Times article as having a BLP justification. The forgery charge is supported by that article. Reliable sources do indicate that this man has had a checkered history. The version to which Truthmaker1 reverted appears sanitized. Due to the complexity of Freer's dealings, it is possible that the details of his past troubles are still not exactly correct in the article. But deleting the Times reference can't be a reasonable step to take in fixing that. ] (]) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Tiwana family of Shahpur}} <br />
	There is NO evidence he had a checkered past. A gag order was instituted on Freer during the Gizmondo investigation by the court appointed liquidators. Therefore the articles cited were created without any way for Freer to pursue justice and keep them fair. The 2 journalists in the articles you cite are under indictment and awaiting trial for slander. This is NOT sufficient material to warrant publication of for you (the editors of Wiki) to assess him as having a "checkered" past. I will contact Freer and urge him to pursue a legal action against Wiki for slander if these false entries are not removed instantly. ] (]) 00:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Truthmaker1
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Farshwal}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' ]
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No vio? Request extra review; Review: both blocked 24 hours) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Blade of the Phantom Master}}. {{3RRV\|Jazz81089}}: Time reported: 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]

	*Previous version reverted to:

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert: {{user\|61.119.133.163}}
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
	I happened to know the article due to repeated vandalism on ] by ] who also vandalised the page of Blade of the Phantom Master as blanking the nationality of the artists. The main dispute is that it is only ], Japanese comics, or ]. However, the two are translated into Japanese / Korean cartoon, so I presented a compromised version like ''" the work is a cartoon and an animation series created by Korean manhwa artist..., specializing as Japanese manga published by a Japanese publisher"''....However, the anon removed all Korean mention and manhwa. I think this disruption is unfair, but have tried to resolve the dispute enough, as opened a discussion at the talk page, left message at Japanese ] ISP anon(s) for discussion several times, even filed RFC and went ], ]. But nothing returned from the other, and the anon keeps ignoring all ] methods and removed Korean mention which originally addressed on the article. However, too obvious sock account (return after his/her 8 month break and under 15 edits in total). There is no other participant in dispute, the anon is highly likely Jazz81089. I went to ], but due to his scare total edits made Checkuser hard to judge anything.]

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] (from User:Farshwal themselves)
	I believe that this case is related to a banned user who did the same thing on the article in question last June, and the anon/Jazz81089 also already violated 3RR rules.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
	*lst revert by 220.104.47.22 (ocn)
	*2nd revert by 61.119.129.25 (ocn)
	*3rd revert by Jazz81089 (overlapped with above 3RR)
	*4th revert by 61.119.133.163 (ocn) (overlapped with above 3RR)
	*5th revert by Jazz81089 (overlapped with above 3RR)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	I don't see that he has any intention to cooperate with the opponent (me) and regard a consensus. Judging by the circumstance evidence, the dynamic anon could be none but Jazz81089. He violated 3RR rules twice, so I think he needs a lesson on his violations. --] (]) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			Hi, I'm just an uninvolved third-party editor who came across this 3RR violation involving the change of "Parmar Rajputs" to "Jats" in the article lead sentence. The editor themself has made a post on the talk page as seen in the diff above, but they continued to edit-war without getting a consensus first at that talk page discussion. Also worth noting the editor had received a in Sep 2024 for similar disruption, such as ], where they also made an edit changing something to "Jats". — ] ] 09:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''To other admins''' - I see Jazz81089 has made 3 reverts in 24 hours, which ''is'' edit warring. If the IP can be proven to be him then it's 4. Would a block be in order for Appletrees and Jazz? They've both made 3 reverts. ]] 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''': In ] , they are using a slur against the ] caste by calling it "R*put" meaning "Son of Wh*", which is also the caste they are deliberately removing from the article. That in itself merits an indef.] (]) 12:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Blocked indefinitely.--] (]) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: OP indeffed) ==
	::{{AN3\|bb\|24 hours}} Both editors are engaging in edit waring, waiting in some cases as little as 30 minutes after the dealine to revert again. They are both ] --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::'''Comment.''' Selket's action seems correct. In case the situation continues in the future, notice that Jazz81089 appears determined to remove mention of any Korean connection from ]. This work, though published in Japan as manga, was created by a Korean author, so Jazz's repeated removals don't seem well-advised. ] (]) 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Bhanot}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] <sup>] ]</sup> (Result: 24 hour block ) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|DoctorWhoFan91}}
			{{Comment}}Now what should I say, this reckless person has crossed all limits for three revert rule and spamming on user talk with thrustful comments , and he keeps bothering me repeatedly with the same fabricated nonsense. He keeps giving those mocking statements against me for commissioning an report and is persistently stuck on the same matter over and over again. I want him to be punished for his vile actions, and for the offensive things he has said in his statements, which had a bad influence on people. He is going to everyone’s talk pages

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Minutes to Midnight (album)‎ }}. {{3RRV\|69.243.88.114}}: Time reported: 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

	''Diffs ~~are~~ ~~listed~~ ~~from~~ ~~oldest to newest, dates are in UTC~~''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
			#
			#
			#

	# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>

	* Diff of warning:

	—] <sup>] ]</sup> 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	:'''Result''' - I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. ]] 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== On ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Wafa Sultan}}.: Time reported: 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

			:I suspect a ] is coming here, but for now I'll say to OP, don't make personal attacks . Bafflingly, you linked to the NPA policy in the same edit summary. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 11:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			:The OP account has been reported to AIV by ] with the suspicion that it's yet another sockpuppet account of User:Truthfindervert: ]. — ] ] 11:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	Just look at the . They're having a rather unamusing revert war which I attempted to mediate; meditation failed as one IP refuses to listen and the other refuses to assume good faith. --] (]) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
			:Yeah, kinda funny isn't it, a sockpuppet accusing others of edit-warring after move-vandalising. OP has been reported to AIV and SPI btw, so this will just led to them being blocked faster lol. ] (]) 11:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	: I reported the user for vandalism because this is what he is doing. He repeatedly removed references from the ] and ] and replaced them with one that cites Misplaced Pages as a source, and after I warned him, he decided to continue with his vandalism, while copying my edit summaries and even added a warning template to my talkpage. ] (]) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
	::I ~~believe~~ ~~that's~~ ~~because~~ ~~you~~ ~~did~~ ~~the~~ ~~same~~ to ~~the~~ ~~other~~ IP. --] (]) 23:51, 6 ~~June~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		::Could somone move the page back after OP is blocked, they have done it again. ] (]) 11:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yeah let's give the bots that fix the double-redirects a break and stop move-warring the page until the account is blocked. It's only gonna clutter the page histories and logs more and more, and the title the person is trying to move the page to isn't an unconstructive title anyway. — ] ] 11:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|p}} — ''']''' '']'' 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
			::::Apologies, I got carried away trying to stop the bot. ] (]) 11:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Sock, not bot, sorry. ] (]) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I will now direct any visiting mods to Tested account , so yes, this should be a ]. I do not know this user but there are multiple accusations of this being an LTA sock. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 11:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The account is a suspected sock of ], see ]. Pinging {{Ping\|Ivanvector\|zzuuzz\|Izno}}. - ] (]) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I had said this before as well—you are the same people @]@] who want to manipulate the article in your own way and keep editing it to portray it in the same context of that past misunderstanding and conflict. So, I have nothing for you. You just keep putting in your efforts, but the consequences of your violative actions will come to you eventually. I have no answers for that, but when you are found guilty, you will have to deal with them on your own.
			:::This is my last reply, requesting administrative intervention as the accuser under the three-revert rule. ] (]) 11:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I have '''indefinitely blocked''' ]; almost certainly a sock but even if they aren't, they're being wildly disruptive and attacking others. ] 11:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The page has also been move-protected for 2 days following a ] I made at RPP/I. — ] ] 11:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Article~~ ~~protected~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned ) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|United States Board on Geographic Names}} <br />
	*] violation on {{Article\|Arrow Air Flight 1285}}. {{3RRV\|Anyeverybody}}: Time reported: 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Wamalotpark}}

	*Previous version reverted to: ~~Adds~~ ~~his self made image: '''Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png'''~~		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			# , using their IP, which is ]
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st ~~revert~~: ~~Adds his self made image: '''Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png'''~~		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*2nd revert: Adds his self made image: '''Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png'''
	*3rd revert: Adds his self made image: '''Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png'''
	*4th revert: Adds his self made image: '''Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png'''

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			*Wamalotpark is edit warring with multiple editors across multiple articles, and are making the same edits .-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	This is about ] reverting 4 times within 4 hours, after being warned, and being asked to revert himself, to no avail.<br>
			*The charge is obviously correct. ], I reverted you because no advantage should go to the edit warrior. If you revert again you will be blocked. The logged-out editing is another matter, a more serious matter, and as it happens I can see just how much of it you have been doing. You should stop doing that esp. if, as you did here, you seem to be doing it to avoid scrutiny, because it's abusive and you are going to get blocked for it. ] (]) 00:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	He persists in adding his own self-made images into an accident article, where what happened is in dispute, violating ] and ]. He has also violated 3RR, and I have to revert himself, which he has not done. I have unfortunately had to run up to three reverts myself, and as involved admin I am stopping to let others deal with him. ] (]) 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	:Anybody choosing to block Anyeverybody over this should, in fairness, block Crum375 as well - he's made the opposite reversion himself about 8 times in the past week (though never more than three times within any actual 24 hour period as far as I can see). Actually, without resorting to blocking, I'm trying to get these parties actually talking constructively. Cheers --] (]) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	::If performing 8 reverts in a week is a violation, I am not sure where that's stated. I also suspect most active Wikipedians would be "violating" that routinely. This page is about ], and this editor has reverted 4 times in 4 hours. ] (]) 03:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::You might care to re-read ] and note that the whole purpose of the rule is to avoid edit warring, and that it's possible to violate this even having made fewer than three reversions in a 24-hour period. Reverting over and over again is not going to resolve a dispute... --] (]) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hindi–Urdu controversy}} <br />
	::As you have protected the article, there is no threat of disruption and thus blocking anyone is inappropriate. Blocks are preventative, not punative. --] (]) 03:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Augmented Seventh}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271389468&oldid=1269162140
	::Please note that Crum has been reverting more than the image; his/her evidence actually shows him/her Moreover his/her response on the article's talk page seem to indicate this as well as they seem to refuse to enter into discussions about expanding the article on the talk page. ] 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::Rlandmann has protected the article. There is nothing more to argue about here. Anybody blocking Crum375 over this should be desysopped faster than you can say arbitration. --] (]) 03:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::If the case weren't moot due to the protection, in my view a block of Anynobody would have been appropriate. A self-made computer-generated image of what the airplane might have looked like under one of the scenarios can't be justified by any reference to reliable sources. He did go over 3RR while Crum did not. It's hard to make a defence of Anynobody's edits as being within policy. ] (]) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Sure - I agree it would have been appropriate. I eventually protected the article as an alternative to blocking ''both'' of them. I'd rather have them talking. --] (]) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No action ) ==
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271341767&oldid=1269162140
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271342146&oldid=1271341767
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271342693&oldid=1271342146
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271346369&oldid=1271342693
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271384695&oldid=1271346369
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271389468&oldid=1271384695

	*] violation on {{Article\|Mecca}}. {{3RRV\|Yahel Guhan}}: Time reported: 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271427280&oldid=1271423082
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st ~~revert~~:		'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271423082&oldid=1271392849
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271428457&oldid=1271428288
	:Please note the user reverted the same material 4 times in 24 hours and 43 minutes.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	:In each revert, the user adds the following material:
	<blockquote>This law has been criticized for religious discrimination against non-muslims. Freedom House showed on its website, on a page tiled "Religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia", a picture of a sign showing Muslim-only and non-Muslim roads.</blockquote>

			The article in question presents one-sided information, and that too sometimes using unsourced and questionable sources. The language Urdu is part of the Pakistani identity, and this article does not engage with the perspectives of Pakistanis who argue that the language Urdu has its own identity, distinct from Hindi. It's culturally insensitive to dismiss the cultural identity of another community and dismiss their perspecitives entirely to push one-sided claims that only serve to undermine their identity.
	*Diff of 3RR warning: I warned the user twice before making this report: , saying that I will not report him/her if he/she self-reverted.] (]) 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|nv}} ] (]) 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

			::Left CTOPS notice on talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	::First of all, I never violated the 3rr rule, as my edits are not within a 24 hour period. Second, you are an equally active member in the dispute, as you alone have reverted the inclusion each time I added it ever since the first time I added it. Not to mention you recently got away with 2 3rr violations without being blocked. ] (]) 05:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	::In the last 40 hours I've made 3 reverts to the article while you've made 4 in just over 24 hours. Secondly, I'm giving you a chance to correct yourself. If I was given the chance to do so, I would only be too glad to self-revert.] (]) 05:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::NO. I made 3 reverts, not 4 in 24 hours, and so have you. You are probably just waiting for me to be blocked, or an hour to pass before you revert me agian. Instead you make more false allegations of a non-real 3rr violation. Conviently just one day after your incorrect stalking report. This is simple math; it is 3, not 4. ] (]) 05:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	:Note to admins, Bless Sins appears to be forum shopping for a block of Yahel Guhan. See also: ] (]) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	::Re: blocking: I've stated 3 times now that I will retract this report if Yahel self-reverts. Had I wanted to see the user get blocked I wouldn't have have warned him twice (, ) before coming here.] (]) 05:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::You want your way in the article, and am willing to make up allegations of a falsified 3rr report in order to get it. You want that clause deleted inspite of it being well sourced and within wiki policies. Warnings are a required step in making 3rr reports, and even though you did the math incorrectly, you know a warning is required before a block is ever made. I love how you attempt to hide your real intentions. ] (]) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::You are well aware of the 3 revert rule, and have been blocked for it in the past. Hence no warning is necessary. ] 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

	*'''Note to other admins''' - YahelGuhan, despite being just outside of the 24 hour limit (40 or so minutes doesn't count, as that's gaming the system), has violated 3RR. Both users, in fact, are edit warring, but I am unsure of how to proceed. I would suggest a block for both. Thoughts? ]] 06:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	**Since Yahel Guhan's last revert I've not made any reversions (though I could have). The edits you see that I made after Yahel Guhan (in the ) are uncontroversial improvements to the article.] (]) 07:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::You are probably just biding your time. Afraid you are going to get blocked, you are trying to temporarily depict yourself as a better editor. I doubt it will last, as your editing shows you do still want that paragraph removed, and you have a history of edit warring to get your way. Second, my intention was not to game the system. I didn't plan to be reverting 40 minutes after the block expired. ] (]) 07:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

	I'm inclined to leave it be, unless and until we see more disruption. — ''']''' '']'' 08:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	:Seems reasonable --] (]) 12:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	::I agree. Both editors are urged to discuss on the talk page instead of reverting. ] (]) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	== ] and other IP-numbers reported by ] (Result: No vio) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Otto Erich Deutsch}}. {{3RRV\|62.178.118.77}} and other IP-numbers: Time reported: 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. --> Then repeatedly inserting incorrect "Jewish" nationality to replace correct "Austrian". Article includes ''Category: Jewish Scolar'' already.

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning: No warning. How? 1st: Anonymous (in contrast to almost all other editors of this article), 2nd: changing ip-numbers, 3rd: editing anonymously for the sole purpose of this one edit. Clearly knowing that he/she is doing wrong.

	I ask for permanent article protection against logged-out-edits. (Of all 41 editors of this article, only the troublemaker and three others were not logged in. Judging from the stubbornness, morosity and the long time '''endurance''' of the editor, peace will not be found otherwise. Excuse my righteous anger :-) ] (]) 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

	:{{AN3\|nv}} Stale, and it needs to be more than three reverts in '''24 hours'''. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	::Sorry, just found the ] for my request. --] (]) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hour block; suspected sockpuppet) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Florina}}. {{3RRV\|Dvaaeg}}: Time reported: 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:

	*1st revert: User removed content in violation of talkpage consensus.
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	:*The edit summary provided on indicates that this is an established user who prefers to engage in ] edit-warring under a series of disposabe ].

	The user has not been active after the 3RR notification, therefore it is reasonable to assume s/he has been offline and unable to become aware of the warning. If they persist, please make a new report and make an explicit reference to this one. --] <small><sup>] </sup></small> 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

	P.S. If my assessment is incorrect, please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to review and/or reopen this issue. --] <small><sup>] </sup></small> 23:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

	::'''Result:''' I have blocked the user for 24 hours as a holding action since I believe that this may be a new sock of a sockpuppeteer who I blocked a while ago (namely {{user\|Aegeanhawk}}). I suggest that the best way to establish this would be to take the matter to ]. An admin with checkuser privileges would be better able than I to determine whether this is, as suspected, a sockpuppet. -- ] (]) 23:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::For the record, I defer to that judgement, my original assessment has been based on taking facts at face value. --] <small><sup>] </sup></small> 23:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::I support the 24-hour block. There are not quite enough edits to show that Dvaaeg is a sock, from behavioral evidence alone (he has only 7 contributions). An initial impression is that he wants to deny any recognition to the ] (which WP no longer requires to be denoted as ]), or to allow Slavic names to be included in the articles on Greek towns like ]. This was also the pattern of edits of Aegeanhawk. I don't see any proof yet that they are the same person, but we should keep an open mind. If checkuser finds this person to be the same editor, then an indefinite block of Dvaaeg would be indicated. ] (]) 19:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Tibet}}. {{3RRV\|Chenyangw}}: Time reported: 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	This user has been previously blocked for edit warring on this article in attempting to revert it to this same diff. 3 different editors in 48 hours have reverted this back to a neutral nonbiased version but this editor has continued to revert back after his 4th edit is more than 24 hours old. This is the only article this user edits and this is the only edit this user makes. Discussion on the talk page has proved unproductive with this editor being unwilling to engage in dialogue about neutral phrasing. ] (]) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

	:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ]. ] ] ] ] &spades; 00:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result:24 for both) ==

	*] violation on {{Gliese 581 c\|Gliese 581 c}}.
	{{3RRV\|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gliese_581_c&action=history

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:
	*8th revert:
	*9th revert:
	*10th revert:


	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	* {{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} - both users. There is no valid reason whatsoever to editwar. ] <small>]</small> 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)



	== ] reported by ] (Result: Reverted, protected) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Moldovan language}} . {{3RRV\|Olahus}}: Time reported: 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning: (in the edit summary)

	User explicitely refused to abide by the 3 reverts rule (see the edit summary of the 4th revision). Note also the personal attacks against me and the false claim of neutrality (he considers "neutral" calling 'stalinist' a language mentioned since the 17th century) in the same l4th revision. Moreover, the version he is reverting to is the same put by ], a of banned ] (edit which I reverted, per ] and] ).] (]) 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

	:I have protected the article for 36 hours, so you (Xasha) can file a ] or ]. If the inquiry comes back positive, I'll remove the protection (or it might just expire) and further reinstatements of the edit by Olahus could lead to a block. If the inquiry comes back negative, I'll revert back to Olahus's version (as it was the latest version) and see where things go. If an edit war continues in that situation, the article will probably be protected (or one of both of you may be blocked for violating the 3RR). -- ''']''' 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
	::I already filled one yesterday, but due to wrong formatting, I think it was ignored by admins. Now I've repeaired it and I hope someone will be able to handle it.] (]) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|The Mickey Mouse Club}}. {{3RRV\|TragedyStriker}}: Time reported: 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	TragedyStriker is virtually an SPA promoting ]. After attempting unsuccessfully to put include him as a mouseketeer, he has recently come up with some fairly obscure paper sources to justify the inclusion. Consensus among other editors is that the change can only be included after someone '''other''' than TragedyStriker has verified the information. TragedyStriker seems quite unwilling to accept this. ] (]) 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

	TragedyStriker is me, and a Wiki editor interested in ]. I am not a SPA, and not an artist at all. The sources are not obscure at all, but Disney Channel Magazines; official sources from the very television station that broadcasted the show. There are also a NUMBER of online sources that have been deleted by 3 editors, one of whom maintains a hate website on the subject. I have scanned the articles and sent them to half a dozen other editors regarding Jaydon, and will have others reinclude the information. It seems ludacris that I am being told that an "uninterested" editor has to reinclude this information, when it goes completely against the spirit and policies of Wiki. Assuming good faith is the very backbone of Wiki, and it's very discouraging to run into editors like this. I have provided everything that this select few have asked for and at this point, all of it has been pushed aside. If I am taking the initiative to research the sources to create a more informative and more accurate article, I don't think it's too much to ask for other editors to take a small amount of time to look at the same sources provided if they have any questions. Please advise.

	] (]) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

	== Example ==

	<pre>
	<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV\|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
	</pre>

	== See also ==

	* ] or ]
	* – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

Latest revision as of 01:46, 24 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)
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177
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:Xuangzadoo reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: Page protected indef)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270059834 by 25 Cents FC (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270040967 by Ratnahastin (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
01:28 15 January 2025 "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
11:55, 14 January 2025 11:55 "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of religious slurs."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Kanglu */ add"

Comments:

All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.

Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.

Xuangzadoo (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

More reverts , can someone do something? - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected I also note the user has been alerted to CTOPS, which I protected the page under, so there will be no room for argument if this behavior continues. Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Kelvintjy reported by User:Raoul mishima (Result: Stale)

Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan
User being reported: Kelvintjy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan

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

Comments:

Hello the user Kelvintjy has been engaged in another war last summer and was banned from the Soka Gakkai page. He's been pursuing an edit war on the Dissidence page too without daring give explanations on the talk page though he was invited to do it many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoul mishima (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Stale Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bbb23 you blocked this user from the page Soka Gakkai in Aug. 2024 for the same reasons. Raoul mishima (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You also block Raoul but later unblocked him after he made his appeal. Kelvintjy (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand the user always keep targeting me. I am more of a silence contributor. I had seen how the complainant had argue with other contributor in other talk page and after a while the complainant stay silent and not touching certain topic and instead keep making edit on articles related to Soka Gakkai or Daisaku Ikeda. Now, he is making a lot of edit on Soka Gakkai International. Kelvintjy (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Ergzay reported by User:CommunityNotesContributor (Result: 1RR imposed on article)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270884092 by RodRabelo7 (talk) Reverting for user specifying basically WP:IDONTLIKETHIS as their reasoning"
18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270880207 by EF5 (talk) I believe you have reverted this edit in error so I am adding it back. Rando tweet from a random organization? The Anti-defamation league is cited elsewhere in this article and this tweet was in the article previously. I simply copy pasted it from a previous edit. ADL is a trusted source in the perennial source list WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Anti-Defamation_League"
17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270877579 by EF5 (talk) Removing misinformation"
17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270854942 by Citing (talk) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Revert, this is not the purpose of the short description"
22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270715109 by Fakescientist8000 (talk) Elon is not a multinational"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Elon Musk." (edit: corrected diff)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" (edit: added diff, fix date)

Comments:

Breach of WP:3RR (added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below). CNC (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

User:CommunityNotesContributor seems to be making a mistake here as several of those edits were of different content. You can't just list every single revert and call it edit warring. And the brief edit warring that did happen stopped as I realized I was reverting the wrong thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1270879523 Ergzay (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Read the bright read box at WP:3RR (. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Objective3000 So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. Ergzay (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. Ergzay (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. Ergzay (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:3RR: There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. – RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. Ergzay (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.

The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. Ergzay (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording "LMAO, this is as trustworthy as Fox News" followed by "cannot see the pertinence of this" after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. Ergzay (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

What is a CTOP? Ergzay (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A CTOP is a WP:CTOP. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. Ergzay (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is an incorrect characterization of the discussion. The people you were edit warring with said, correctly, that he was accused of having made what looks like the Nazi salute. As you know from the video and the sources provided, this is objectively correct. You just don't like the fact that reliable sources said this about him. Nobody is trying to put "Elon Musk is a Nazi" in the article. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on the comment in response to the notification for this discussion, "I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it", I was quite surprised to see that the editor didn't acquire an understanding of 3RR when previously warned for edit warring in 2020. That's sometime ago granted, but additionally a lack of awareness of CTOP, when there is an edit notice at Musk's page regarding BLP policy, is highly suggestive of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. This in addition to the 3RR warning that was ignored, followed by continuing to revert other editors, and eventually arguing that it must be because I am wrong. If there is an essay based on "Everyone else must be wrong because I'm always right" I'd very much like to read it. As for this report, I primarily wanted to nip the edit war in the bud which appears to have worked for now, given the talk page warning failed to achieve anything. I otherwise remain concerned about the general WP:NOTHERE based indicators; disruptive editing, battleground attitude, and lack of willingness to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner. CNC (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given that some of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that covers all edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with the letter, but not the spirit, of 3RR (In other words, another case of why we can't have nice things)) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

We are likely to see Ergzay at ANI at some point. But as I was thinking of asking for 1RR early today; I'm fine with that decision. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Good decision. I otherwise think a final warning for edit warring is appropriate, given the 3RR violation even excluding BLPREMOVE reverts (first 4 diffs to be specific). There's nothing else to drag out here given Ergzay intends to take a step back from the Musk article, and per above, there is always the ANI route for any future incidents. CNC (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor My statement that you quoted there is because I'm a divisive person and people often don't like how I act on Misplaced Pages and the edits I make. People have dragged me to this place several times in the past over the years and I've always found it reasonably fair against people who are emotionally involved against dragging me down. That is why I said what I did. And as to the previous warning that you claim was me "not getting it", that was 3 reverts of the same material, and with a name 3RR the association is automatic. Edit: And I'll additionally add, I'm most certainly interested in building an accurate encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources. I'm still very happy to use sources that exist and they should be used whenever possible, but in this modern day and age of heavily politicized and biased media, editors more than ever need to have wide open eyes and use rational thinking. Ergzay (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources" See WP:VNT. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

And WP:KNOW, while you're at it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Use wide open eyes and use rational thinking (as defined by me)" seems to implicate Misplaced Pages:No original research, as well. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

User:203.115.14.139 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Semi-protected one week; IP range blocked two weeks)

User being reported: 203.115.14.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is straight-up vandalism. BusterD semi-protected the article for one week, and I've blocked Special:contributions/203.115.14.0/24 for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

User:68.150.205.46 reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: Reported user had self-reverted before the report was made)

User being reported: 68.150.205.46 (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 08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1271015371 by 68.150.205.46 (talk)"
2. 08:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1271015536 by 68.150.205.46 (talk)"
3. 08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1271014641 by 68.150.205.46 (talk)"
07:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "there is no consensus in talk. there is no government election today that uses your exact Droop. it is not what Droop says his quota was"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ reply to Quantling"
22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit reply to Quantling"
22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ addition"
22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit addition"

Comments:

User has been edit-warring for the past 9 months to try and reinsert incorrect information into the article, despite repeatedly having had this mistake corrected, and a consensus of 5 separate editors against these changes. Request page ban from Droop quota, Hare quota, electoral quota, and single transferable vote. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Closed Limelike Curves, the user appears to have self-reverted less than an hour after their last edit warring continuation, and 14 hours before your report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that (I didn't notice the last edit was a self-revert). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

68.150.205.46, thanks for self-reverting. Can you agree not to re-add the same material until a real consensus is found? An RfC could help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Farshwal reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (from User:Farshwal themselves)

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

Comments:

Hi, I'm just an uninvolved third-party editor who came across this 3RR violation involving the change of "Parmar Rajputs" to "Jats" in the article lead sentence. The editor themself has made a post on the talk page as seen in the diff above, but they continued to edit-war without getting a consensus first at that talk page discussion. Also worth noting the editor had received a prior 7-day block in Sep 2024 for similar disruption, such as this, where they also made an edit changing something to "Jats". — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: In Special:Diff/1271043038 , they are using a slur against the Rajput caste by calling it "R***put" meaning "Son of Wh***", which is also the caste they are deliberately removing from the article. That in itself merits an indef.ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

User:DoctorWhoFan91 reported by User:Tested account (Result: OP indeffed)

Page: Bhanot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Comment:Now what should I say, this reckless person has crossed all limits for three revert rule and spamming on user talk with thrustful comments , and he keeps bothering me repeatedly with the same fabricated nonsense. He keeps giving those mocking statements against me for commissioning an report and is persistently stuck on the same matter over and over again. I want him to be punished for his vile actions, and for the offensive things he has said in his statements, which had a bad influence on people. He is going to everyone’s talk pages

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I suspect a WP:BOOMERANG is coming here, but for now I'll say to OP, don't make personal attacks as you did here. Bafflingly, you linked to the NPA policy in the same edit summary. — Czello 11:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The OP account has been reported to AIV by User:Ratnahastin with the suspicion that it's yet another sockpuppet account of User:Truthfindervert: diff. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda funny isn't it, a sockpuppet accusing others of edit-warring after move-vandalising. OP has been reported to AIV and SPI btw, so this will just led to them being blocked faster lol. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Could somone move the page back after OP is blocked, they have done it again. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah let's give the bots that fix the double-redirects a break and stop move-warring the page until the account is blocked. It's only gonna clutter the page histories and logs more and more, and the title the person is trying to move the page to isn't an unconstructive title anyway. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I got carried away trying to stop the bot. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Sock, not bot, sorry. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I will now direct any visiting mods to Tested account clearly edit warring, so yes, this should be a WP:BOOMERANG. I do not know this user but there are multiple accusations of this being an LTA sock. — Czello 11:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The account is a suspected sock of Truthfindervert, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Summerbreakcooldown. Pinging @Ivanvector, Zzuuzz, and Izno:. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I had said this before as well—you are the same people @Czello@DoctorWhoFan91 who want to manipulate the article in your own way and keep editing it to portray it in the same context of that past misunderstanding and conflict. So, I have nothing for you. You just keep putting in your efforts, but the consequences of your violative actions will come to you eventually. I have no answers for that, but when you are found guilty, you will have to deal with them on your own.

This is my last reply, requesting administrative intervention as the accuser under the three-revert rule. Tested account (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Tested account; almost certainly a sock but even if they aren't, they're being wildly disruptive and attacking others. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The page has also been move-protected for 2 days following a request for move protection I made at RPP/I. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Wamalotpark reported by User:Ponyo (Result: Warned )

Previous version reverted to: First edit to change the capitalization

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First revert, using their IP, which is very obviously the same editor
Second revert
Third revert
Fourth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Wamalotpark is edit warring with multiple editors across multiple articles, and are making the same edits while logged out.-- Ponyo 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The charge is obviously correct. User:Wamalotpark, I reverted you because no advantage should go to the edit warrior. If you revert again you will be blocked. The logged-out editing is another matter, a more serious matter, and as it happens I can see just how much of it you have been doing. You should stop doing that esp. if, as you did here, you seem to be doing it to avoid scrutiny, because it's abusive and you are going to get blocked for it. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Augmented Seventh reported by User:Recyclethispizzabox (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271389468&oldid=1269162140

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271427280&oldid=1271423082

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271423082&oldid=1271392849

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271428457&oldid=1271428288

Comments:

The article in question presents one-sided information, and that too sometimes using unsourced and questionable sources. The language Urdu is part of the Pakistani identity, and this article does not engage with the perspectives of Pakistanis who argue that the language Urdu has its own identity, distinct from Hindi. It's culturally insensitive to dismiss the cultural identity of another community and dismiss their perspecitives entirely to push one-sided claims that only serve to undermine their identity.

No violation Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Left CTOPS notice on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: