Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:56, 12 September 2008 view sourceBlack Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,335 edits →Boodlesthecat reported by Piotrus (Result: warned/stale ): comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:51, 23 January 2025 view source Closed Limelike Curves (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,187 edits →User:68.150.205.46 reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: Reported user had self-reverted before the report was made): ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{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}}] ]
{{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 = 79 |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. -->
</noinclude>
__TOC__


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected indef) ==
=Violations=
:Please place ] {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can the ] for it.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of religious slurs}}
<!--
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.
-->


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked at 09:12 by ]) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*] violation on {{Article|Richard Steel}}.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
{{3RRV|24.180.21.121}}
# {{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:'''
Time reported: 2:48 AM
# {{diff2|1270040704|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
# {{diff2|1270045411|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->


All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- The link above must be to a version, not a diff, and must be from BEFORE all the
reverting took place. This helps us establish that the first edit, in particular, is a
revert to a previous version.
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. -->


:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:: You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - ] (]) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:: More reverts , can someone do something? - ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::: {{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: 48 hours) ==
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <br />
*Diff of 3RR warning:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GiggaHigga127}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on {{Article|Second Manchu invasion of Korea}}.
# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
# – same
# – same
# – same
# – same, now with PA


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
{{3RRV|Manacpowers}}


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
Time reported:] (]) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. --> '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*1st revert:
User:GiggaHigga127 insists on adding the ] and ] divisions to Conor Benn's infobox. Our style guide at WikiProject Boxing, ], says to only include weight classes in which a boxer has ''notably'' competed, that being usually for regional/minor/world titles. In Benn's case, that division was ] for almost the entirety of his career, and he did indeed hold a regional title in that division. In 2023 he was given a lengthy ban from the sport, from which he recently returned in a pair of throwaway fights within the light middleweight limit, against non-notable opposition and with no titles at stake. Per the style guide, those throwaway fights are not important enough to warrant the inclusion of light middleweight in the infobox, at least until he begins competing there regularly.
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:


As far as middleweight goes, Benn has ''never competed anywhere close to that weight class''. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, ] and ] should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had ] regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. ] would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. ] (]) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*Diff of 3RR warning:
:It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. ] (]) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Based on , it could be ] as well. ] (]) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --] (]) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Of course you stand by the revision. You show up less than 12 hours after Gigga gets blocked, and perform the exact same revert. Dodgy. ] (]) 19:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
'''Comments'''
Befor this 3rr, he reverted the page 8 times. If I had not shown up to make a compromise, his last revert would have been 12th revert.
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*7th revert:
*8th revert:
He's already blocked for 3times and he sure has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do.--] (]) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tübingen School}}
:: Again, you also 'hide' Time and Date, too. it is not violate 3rr rule within 24 hrs. malformed 3RR report.
:: My change is a revert of banned user version edit.
::''Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user''
:: this is bad faith report. no doubt about it. duplicated report, possibly personal attack. ] (]) 12:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', No, Manacowers, you're wrong on this although Michael Frideirch reported wrong reports previously. You violated 3RR on the article at this time. The user of whom you're accusing is not "banned", just said to be "likely a sock" per CU. Either self-reverting and apologizing to Bentecbye or getting blocked. By the way, Michael Friedrich, you're also responsible for the continued edit warring with him and another over multiple articles.], ], ], ], ]. I think it would be better for the two to have a nice break for the continued edit warring. (Of course, a longer one for Manac).--] (]) 13:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xpander1}}
He(])'s has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do. many user opposed his edit. but, He keep revert his POV pushing edit continually. also his edit is not a compromised. his wrong interpret and Content POV forking opposed by several users.] (]) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 14:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
24 hours????.'''too short''' .WHY??? He is too bad.
*
*
*
*
*
*
* <small>—Preceding ].comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->--] (]) 07:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
*Blocking for 3RR is intended to prevent edit warring, not to punish users. ] (]) 09:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
# {{diff2|1270585353|07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Self-reverting as per ]"
# {{diff2|1270579742|06:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270517034 by ] (]): Please see the redirect page for adding new edits"
# {{diff2|1270517034|22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270516481 by ] (]): Please avoid making an edit war, I asked you nicely"
# {{diff2|1270516481|22:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1270515748|22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270489731 by ] (]): Please add the new sources to ] Best."
# {{diff|oldid=1270482917|diff=1270489731|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1270484281|19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) other editors simply continued my original work, which I respect"
## {{diff2|1270489731|19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Redirecting page the newly created page"
# {{diff2|1270482597|19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Reverting my own edit to contest page creation attribution"
# {{diff2|1270267829|19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
* Page: {{article|Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders roster|}}
# {{diff2|1270589185|07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
* User: {{userlinks|68.146.103.217|}}


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{diff2|1270588908|07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270341854|02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests}} "/* Uncontroversial technical requests */ Decline, this one is more of a histmerge request which would also be declined from ] - I'm happy to explain further on a talk page"


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


Extremely aggressive edit warring. Xpander1 had expanded a redirect to a page with no issue but decided it would be better to just create a page, hence a discussion at ]. Editor decided to "redact contribution in protest", initially blanking then resorting to redirecting. ] would assist in reverting these changes with Xpander1 reacting negatively, violating 3RR to get it erased. Editor had created redirects such as ] and ], with ] being where he did a cut-and-paste move from original article. Has no intention to resolve dispute any time soon. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 08:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->


:All I did was self-reverting, the article had no significant history before my contribution. What you are describing as "copy-pasting", is me putting my own creation in a new page. As I have explained in many places, in the ], and elsewhere. My rationale is very simple, Misplaced Pages must distinguish between '''valid-article-creators''' and '''redirect-page-creators'''. I currently count as the latter. Which don't think is fair. ] (]) 08:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* 1st revert:
::As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on ] and on the . ] (]) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


The Teahouse discussion can be found (for now) at ]. Please see also ] and ]. ] (]) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
:{{AN3|b|72 hours}} , I am mystified—no, make it ''stunned''—that Xpander thinks this edit-warring is justified. In what sense are they not being attributed as the page creator sufficiently for their ego? Do they mean that the ''page creation log'' isn't saying that they are? Uh, that's something the ''software'' does, that by design no one has control over. {{u|Wetman}} is going to get credit for creating the ''page'', yes, as the empty redirect it was apparently quite happy to have been for 15 years. As noted, no editor familiar with how our processes work would doubt that Xpander, in practical terms, created the ''article'' by translating the dewiki article, regardless of what the logs say.<p>Xpander's repeated reversion to the redirect is, frankly, childish behavior that smacks of ]. I strongly remind them ].<p>I also reject their argument that ] shields them as they were merely always "reverting their own edit". Technically that might be arguable, but it is ''inarguable'' that, especially given their statement that ], they did so in a manner calculated to cause ] and interfere with the work of others. To allow this to pass on that basis would be opening up a whole new way to ]. ] (]) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Addendum''': I also commend ] to {{u|Xpander1}}'s attention. ] (]) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 hours) ==
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Oriel High School}}
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|92.238.20.255}}
While this is a simple formatting change, this user has repeatedly ignored the template format. All players are listed numerically, I have yet to figure out whether the change is for alphabetical or depth chart reasons. All the same, I have placed a note on both the user's talk page and the template's talk page, explaining the format of the template. I believe this user may also be the same user (70.73.106.16) I had the same problem with a few days ago. ] (]) 03:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:Only three reverts given, and I'm not seeing a fourth in the page history. If I'm wrong, please link to the fourth revert; otherwise no vio. ] ] 11:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::Oops I reported it one edit too early. However, the 4th edit is now done, so I guess the user falls in violation correct? ] (]) 10:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warning) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on
# {{diff2|1270686162|19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
*{{article|Virginia in the American Civil War}}.
# {{diff2|1270685824|19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
*{{3RRV|Grayghost01}}
# {{diff2|1270685483|19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
# {{diff2|1270684934|19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
# {{diff2|1270683674|19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"


*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
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->


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


<u>'''Comments''': This IP is trying to censor information in that article --] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</u>
*1st revert:
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ] (]) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I undid that block and restored it because simply removing the block isn't really an option in response to actually disruptive editing, but the IP editor's behavior wasn't the main issue in this edit war. I'll send warnings around to people who should know better. ] (]) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==
*2nd revert:


'''Page:''' ] <br />
*3rd revert:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kelvintjy}}
*4th revert:


'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: In addition, a warning in an edit summary at was also given.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
This sequence is the result of conflicts between this editor versus myself and several other editors (one other has particulary been singled out by Grayghost) over several articles including ], ], and ]. The editor repeatedly categorizes others' edits as vandalism both in edit summaries and by actual warnings placed on user talk pages. He identifies his particular POV a well as editing style at ]. ] (]) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
:'''Comment''': Grayghost01 has violated 3RR in my opinion; but the 3RR warning did not include a link to the 3RR policy. Although Grayghost01 has been editing for some time, the user's talk page history is less than 50 edits and I didn't notice any other 3RR warnings on it. I posted a . (non-admin opinion) ] (]) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081
*The warning seems to have stopped the edit war; we'll leave it at that. ] (]) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
# 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


::I've been busy on other wiki-topics, see my list of created pages and long-standing contributions of high-quality. The user ], from Ohio, originally made the POV alternations to ], on off-topic news articles, and various details below the level of detail appropriate for the page. As a Virginian, and member of the Virginia Task Force and Civil War Task Force, I stick to contributions of my locality. North Shoreman has a POV on the Civil War that he wishes to put in almost every page on a Southern Locale. Several times I have had to undo off-topic out-of-scope edits that North Shoreman has INTENTIONALLY put in only for the sake of being bothersome, not in the INTENT OF GOOD WIKI SPIRIT. In my humble opinion, the Revert-Violator and well beyond 3RR has been North Shoreman. I have called his attention to look at himself introspectively, to see his own conflict of interest on the topic (An Ohio-man with a POV editing Virginia pages, disputing with a published Virginia Historian). In conclusion, there are both POV and COI problems here. I have advised him that if he wishes to diatribe or blog on Lincoln and Fort Sumter to PLEASE ... PLEASE ... go ahead, but to do so on pages on THOSE topics. As a retired instructor from Marine Corps University, and curriculum developer on topics such as this ... I'm frankly apalled ... but thus is the nature of Wiki to deal with bothersome folks such as this. Good day, ] (]) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


On a P.S. topic, as a resident of Winchester, Virginia, you will see in that page which I created initially quite awhile ago, a depth of information, content, graphics and quality not present in many other ACW pages. I have obtained free-release permission on many embedded images, as well as created many. My contributions are purely historically-topic in nature. I have added and cited many references. If the gentleman from Ohio, ], honestly things he has something positive or valuable to contribute to these very localized articles ], ], ] ... then by all means, he is welcome. However, as I mentioned previously, as a published author I do not agree with the nature, the content, the orientation, and the level of detail of North Shoreman's edits. In fact, they are intented to express his POV on the Civil War as a whole. By chance, I made a minor edit to the very high-level topic of ] by merely adding a secession date for Arizona Territory (a well documented historic fact). Thereupon ] and his compatriot ] proceed to war-edit on this page, and then delve down into other areas where I mainly work and contribute. I am merely a retiree, Virginia historian, spending free time on history packages, tours, and writings. I am local to this area, and work with local organizations, schools, etc for the promotion of local history. My contributions (see my user page) are focused in Virginia and locally. I don't normally contribute to the high-level topics where ] and his compatriot ] like to edit frequently with their POV. I stand confident that any fair examination of these users vis-a-vis my contributions will reveal a very different tone and nature, and from my contributions you will find material which is organized, coherent, thoughtful, and attractive to wiki users reading on this topic. I hope that the admins and admin-helpers here are diligent in their examination, interested in the aims of Wiki, and take the time to exercise due course as necessary. Finally, I have invited these users to dicuss on the discussion pages. They have had no interest in this normal forum, and simply undo, revert, and war-edit at will. Again, thank you for your time in the matter.] (]) 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
*]. ] (]) 09:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined because of lack of consensus) ==


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
* Page: {{article|Political positions of Sarah Palin}}
* User: {{userlinks|Kelly}}


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
* Previous version reverted to:


Hello
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->
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">—&nbsp;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)
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert: (undoes )
* 3rd revert: (undoes )
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert: (undoes )


== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
{{user|Kelly}} is at 6RR (!) on this article, which was ''just'' unprotected because of... edit-warring. These are not vandalism reverts and they're not BLP issues - this is just edit-warring about a content issue. He's an established user and well aware of 3RR and its exceptions. Given that Kelly has been around awhile and has done good work, I was going to simply remind him that he'd hit 6RR already and ask him to take a break. However, another admin (]) already warned Kelly that he'd been edit-warring, and Kelly's response was , concluding with the constructive phrase: "If you would like to block me, bring it." I've therefore left this here for an uninvolved admin to deal with.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}
Note that {{user|Booksnmore4you}} has also gone well over 3RR, though they appear to be a new account and have not been warned about 3RR. I leave the appropriate response to the reviewing admin's discretion. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ergzay}}
:Are you sure this article has just been unprotected? It is possible that the admins here were not aware that it had gone from full protection to semi-protection. I'm also seeing reverting of different bits of content. I know that this is still reverting under ], but is this a straight "no edits without talk page consensus" edit warring? ] (]) 21:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::At first blush, Kelly's response alone deserves ]. Reviewing diffs now.--] (]) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm taking a closer look too. It seems that the sections sourced to an article in the Independent ("Palin: the real scandal") was being edit warred over. I agree that Kelly has also made unconstructive comments on the talk page. On the other hand, that there is discussion ongoing on the talk page is a good thing, and possibly things are calming down now. Jossi said a block would be punitive. I've also left a note at Kelly's talk page. ] (]) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::::KC and I are nominally friendly from waaaaay back in the day, in the interest of fulldisclosure. And I'm not going to start throwing blocks, but I am considering a 1 hour cooldown protection for the page.--] (]) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:::::Who is KC? (Oh, KillerChihuahua?) I'm not going to do anything here either, but someone does need to tell Kelly to back off. The ID cabal comments are grossly inappropriate, and I'm about to say that in the user talk page thread. Editors need to work together here and explain any edits and reverts they do, or request protection (I know, I know, there is an arbcom case about that at the moment). ] (]) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
::::::The status quo is not acceptable. A few days ago, September 4, Kelly hit 6RR on the page and I didn't report it (5 of the reverts happened in ''20 minutes''). On September 6, the article was protected because of edit-warring, which consisted largely of Kelly removing material and incorrectly claiming a BLP exemption. Now he's back at 6RR again. He's continued to since this report, ''again'' erroneously claiming a BLP exemption). I was willing to cut him some slack, but his response to KillerChihuahua indicates that there's a serious problem here. If you think talking to him will more effectively address this egregious edit-warring and ] as opposed to a block for repeated 6RR violations, then go for it, but something needs to change. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270879182|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small|(edit: corrected diff)}}
::::::: I cannot believe that Kelly reverted again, after the warnings given. This is not simply a "mistake" but a pattern of disruption of an unprecedented scale. ] <small>]</small> 04:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Note: Jossi's one to talk about making disruptive choices in editing these articles. ] (]) 04:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(Undent) Uninvolved administrators are welcome to get involved, but I intend to deal with this in the morning.--] (]) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: (ec)Strict enforcement of ] is not disruption, I'm sorry. I'm heading to bed now, hopefully by tomorrow this will all have blown over and we can work forward constructively. But a read of ] will explain the problem well, if anyone has time. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::: These are not BLP violations as per Mastcell and many others that have warned you. This is getting simple out of hand. Where s the admin that would do the right thing and block this editor for blatant disruption? ] <small>]</small> 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:Also, please don't fight on AN pages.--] (]) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::Ok, I have been looking into this for a little while now and here is my (uninvolved) opinion. What Kelly is doing seems to be a bit controversial, but at the same time barely within the scopes of ] and based simply on that reason he should not be blocked. But then when you look at the way he is going about it, it is clear that it is disruptive and is causing un-needed disruption to the article, and based simply on that reason he should be blocked. I like Jossi am a bit biff'd by the fact that Kelly reverted again after being warned, but think a block would cause unnecessary drama and so for the time being I think it best the article left protected and everyone left unblocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Have you checked the reversion? How can you call that material, sourced to the Washington Times to be a BLP violation? Or should I copy here what is considered to be a BLP violation? I was instrumental in making BLP into policy way back with other editors, I monitor BLP/N, and I am not buying that argument. ] <small>]</small> 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Not only that, but her disruption and ] of newbies is making these new editors to trip as well on 3RRs. This has to stop. ] <small>]</small> 04:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::We all know you are having a spat with Kelly jossi. This is NOT the proper location to continue your crusade against him. ] (]) 04:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: I did not make this report, three other admins warned her/him. And I do not have a crusade against her/him. And your comments here ignore the facts and are most unwelcome ] <small>]</small> 04:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I forgot! Its the pile on Kelly show. I'll just go edit ]. Being supportive of someone who's done a shit ton more to keep these articles NPOV than all the administrators of[REDACTED] jointly is a crime. I forgot. ] (]) 04:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Kyaa, consider this your only warning, and further ] comments will result in a block. Unless you are here to discuss the article in question and the edit warring going on, do not comment at all. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
At this point the report is getting stale and a block would not be preventive anyway, so perhaps that ought to be off the table. Kelly and a few other editors are, and have been, patrolling Sarah Palin-related articles and talk pages, aggressively reverting and removing edits, discussions, comments, etc., that they feel violate BLP, WP:NOT, and so on. These routinely go beyond 3RR in a technical sense because they do more than 3 clean-ups per day. On the one hand they are (in my opinion) often over-zealous, dismissing things out of hand and reverting productive discussions on dubious BLP claims that can start to look a little bit like article ], ], or even a touch of POV in the form of avoiding content with controversial implications. On the other hand, these edits are all in good faith, mostly uncontroversial, and tend not to be edit warring - usually the reverts don't overlap. Do we really want to enforce 3RR in a way that chases away people doing article patrol? If so we need more people to watch the articles because the bad edits are coming fast and furious. I don't know the statistics, but something like 90% of all edits to any article on Misplaced Pages are bad edits - simple mistakes, perennial things that have already been decided, B from BRD, test edits, and so on. When an article is edited dozens of time per day there will be dozens of edits per day to revert. If Kelly doesn't do six reverts we need a second editor to do the other three. Anyway, I think people have to make the decision if 3RR is to be strictly applied for making unrelated reverts while uncontroversial patrolling of high-volume articles. If we make that decision, why not simply thank Kelly for the good work, ask to slow it down and be friendlier with the edit summaries, and leave it at that? If you have an issue with an established editor isn't it best to ask nicely instead of threatening a block? ] (]) 05:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:For disclosure, I am one of those editors that is trying to remove questionable material from the Palin talk page, ie forum discussions, rumors, links to blogs, straw man aurguments, you name it. I also agree that "maintenence" of talk pages is essential and requires more help. Right now, it seems like that page is in the Wild West phase, where anything and everything is a go. --] 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
{{AN3|d}} There is a lack of consensus on whether these edits were appropriate. This is more complex than a 3RR vio edit war.--] (]) 16:57, 8 September 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: Editor warned) ==


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* Page: {{article|Boxer Rebellion}}
* User: {{userlinks|Arilang1234}}


Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


] 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)
* Previous version reverted to:


:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
This is the last "good" version of the article from August 31st. Since September 3rd user Arilang1234 has made over a 150 edits to this article. Various people have tried to revert back to the August 31st version to remove Arilang1234's changes only to have those reverts reverted by Arilang1234. Arilang1234's edits are now so numerous in the edit history that people are beginning to attempt corrections of Arilang1234's version of the article rather than seeing they can achieve the same thing by simply reverting to the August 31st version.
::@] 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.}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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) ==
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul Cézanne}}
* 1st revert: Benjwong reverts Arilang1234 edits of the last 2 days restoring August 31 version.
* 2nd revert: Arilang1234 reverts Benjwong's revert.


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}}
In the course of 3 edits user Transparent1 reverts most of the changes made by Arilang1234:
* Edits:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
User Arilang1234 reverts these edits:
* Reverts:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
User Transparent1 again attempts to remove Arilang1234 material:
# {{diff|oldid=1271008210|diff=1271008905|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*
## {{diff2|1271008695|06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
## {{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:'''
User Arilang1234 reverts this:
# {{diff2|1271008376|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
* Revert:
# {{diff2|1271010383|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
User Enochlau reverts Arilang1234's revert:
* Revert:


User 76.103.204.232 attempts to edit out Arilang1234's work:
* Edit:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
User Arilang1234 reverts this:
*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)
* Revert:


== ] reported by ] (Result: Reported user had self-reverted before the report was made) ==
User 76.103.204.232 then reverts again:
* Revert:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Droop quota}}
And Arilang1234 reverts again:
* Revert:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|68.150.205.46}}
User 91.171.113.10 attempts to remove Arilang1234's changes:
* Edit:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
And Arilang1234 reverts this:
* Revert:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
I (as 84.74.150.48 before I acquired a user name) revert Arilang1234's changes:
# {{diff|oldid=1271015536|diff=1271021273|label=Consecutive edits made from 08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* Revert:
## {{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:'''
These are reverted by Cluebot and Arilang1234 makes further additions:
* Edit:


User Enochlau again reverts Arilang1234's changes:
* Revert:


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# {{diff2|1270714484|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ reply to Quantling"
# {{diff2|1270714531|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit reply to Quantling"
# {{diff2|1270714949|22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ addition"
# {{diff2|1270715070|22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit addition"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:


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)
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->


:{{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)
I believe the user's contribution is well intended but not the stuff of a coherent encyclopedia article. Some of it appears scholarly but in fact reflects the personal assertions of an individual (on dates etc.) rather than established historical fact, some reflects non-mainstream opinion on historical events and groups and most is just rambling and irrelevant.
::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)
The bulk of the changes consist of the addition of a few new sections near the start of the article which add no value and are poorly phrased.

The apparently minor changes made to the rest of the existing article reflect a revisionist sino-centric view of history which aims more to serve modern political purposes than fact and would be viewed by many as distasteful (and by that I don't just mean an in-vogue Free Tibet set).

Attempts to revert the article to its state before Arilang1234's edits are being quickly reverted by the user. Enforcing a particular set of opinions and beliefs in this manner does not seem appropriate.

] (]) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:I have '''warned''' Arilang1234. Due to his ], it seems possible he has got the message that cooperation with others will pay dividends. Thanks to Coppertwig for explaining matters to a new editor who appears well-intentioned, but whose work has led to a war-like situation on this article for the last two days. If he resumes editing without trying to achieve consensus, blocks may be issued. ] (]) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir}}
* User: {{userlinks|86.158.238.188}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
:: The user is identified by ] as being banned (visible on the second and fifth link) and indulges in launching repeatedly menaces to me (''i promise to you that your mission of POV will be killed'') and derogatory statements to other users and expresses intent to editwar for 70 more years on this topic ] (]) 12:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
=== Further disruption ===
* The user and launches intimidating summaries, which is ]. Mine intrepidity is being incessantly challenged and is in peril of evanescing if this pestering persists... ] (]) 15:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Discussion ===

Bogrom has also threatened by saying "pakistani editors can throng" hes continuing to abuse me also ] (]) 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

: They actually have... on the Misplaced Pages discussion page. Here one expounds uniquely the three-revert-rule, which I have never trespassed, therefore refrain from inserting minutiae. ] (]) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"no matter how many Pakistani editors throng hither to impose its deltion here" this is the qoute from Bogrom in the AFD page so hes to blame too he also made several controversial edits to muzaffarabad without consensus and with a POV redirect to the POK page ] (]) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
<br>
The 70 year thing was a clear joke hes just weasiling his way in and please check his POV edits on the POK page claiming india has the right to call it what ever they want hes a nationalist ] (]) 14:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Now you are trespassing ] - I do not sojourn in Asia at all. ] (]) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Neither do i but your pro indian stance is undeniable] (]) 14:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: But it is not interdictory. Cease distracting the administrators by deviating their cogitations from the three-revert rule, this is ineffably, extremely ineffably superfluous!. ] (]) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: Bogorm you didnt mind when your chum kashmir cloud broke the three revert rule or where you just letting him off your bias is seeping through your veil of big words ] (]) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
: that was a deserved retort to "this POK article will be deleted no matter how many indian editors flock to this page". Forbear from underscoring deviating minutiae. ] (]) 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That was not abusive freind your big words just dont suite your behaviour please leave you biases away from talk pages ] (]) 14:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur completely with Kashmircloud - PaK is not used by India and Pakistan, the Pakistanis have their version - Azad Kashmir, so must the Bharat version be present too in order to prevent one-sidedness! As eluidated by him and other users, POK does not include only PaK, but a much wider territory, do not mislead the readers. Bogorm (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC) This comment clearly shows his POV based mentality ] (]) 14:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
: Defamations concerning my mentality are not to be committed neither here, nor anywhere in Misplaced Pages, cease trolling! ] (]) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Trolling around on talk pages and provoking editors with your baseless claims is also no desired on[REDACTED] so please keep your philosophical rants about POK and pakistan to yourself unless you wish to stir more trouble as you are by provoking me ] (]) 14:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::: I implore you, block him, he relapses anew into indulging in personal menaces, this is an incontrovertible intimidation essay, please elevate your attention thereto. I do not know which Misplaced Pages rule he has not yet tresspassed: ](explication above), ], ], ](according to the user), ], it is escalating into unambiguously minatory insults! ] (]) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)This provocation of Bogorm is bread out of anger because i have challenged him on the POK talk page this is what drives his unrelenting bias accusations towards me ] (]) 14:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|warned}} One thing I noticed is that this users talk page was a red link and no communication had been attempted. I have left the IP a warning and will block if they continue. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Nashville International Airport}}
* User: {{userlinks|68.52.36.127}}, {{userlinks|Sox23}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

It was at this point the two editors began adding spaces to a section simply for the purpose of posting edit summaries to one another, as shown below:

* Version before edit summary war:

* 1st subsequent edit:
* 2nd subsequent edit:
* 3rd subsequent edit:
* 4th subsequent edit:
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: User has been notified of 3RR on talk page. No response as of yet.

An edit war has ensued on the page, from time index 19:28, 7 September 2008 to 21:56, 7 September 2008 (all times UTC). Any assistance would be most helpful. Thank you. ] (]) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}} ] <sup>]</sup> 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|2008 South Ossetia war}}
* User: {{userlinks|Bogorm}}

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: This user is aware of the 3rr rule, because above this section he's trying to report someone else.

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
This user blows 3rr away and is extremely hard to deal with (he can't be convinced of anything). Most of the reverts are self-evident.

] (]) 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
=== Comment and reporting vandalism ===
The proponent for my blocking has committed ] ("''Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary.''" - the only thing in the summary is mistrust for Russian and Iranian sources, but he erases Ukrainian and American ones as well; "''Removing all or significant parts of pages' content''" - the character of his actions described pretty discernably in ]) by blanking a whole section which was provided with sources:
*
* and .<br>The section was obviously inconvenient for the user, since on the talk page he blames the Iranian and Russian source and utters derogatory comments towards established medias as ], overlooking that there is one Ukrainian and Israeli corroborating the information, and ostensibly being reluctant to search for refuting sources in lieu of disparaging the available ones.
* he offends three renowned Russian sources (], ] and ]) simply for being Russian and and blanks the section. Since vandalism needs not to be present 4 times, but only one for a complaint, I would like to complain against ]'s biased and offensive edits for at least four renowned medias which he erases. ] (]) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
: "''is extremely hard to deal with''" - this is considered (hopefully not only by me) as ]. ] (]) 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

::You've violated 3rr Bogorm, 3rr is like an electric fence. I've given valid reasons in the summary, always referring to the talk page where you didn't respond. You've been reverted by multiple users on inserting dubious material consisting of exceptional claims completely based on dubious sources, so to pull that off as "vandalism" is absurd. ] (]) 18:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Bogorm, not only you made 3RR violation, but you also accuses another user of "vandalism", which is against ] and only makes things worse. That was obviously a content dispute, not a vandalism. This user considers Russian sources unreliable because Russia was a combatant side in this war, and because those media are state-controlled and involved in extensive propaganda campaign. So, he actually wanted to remove something he perceived as garbage. Please always ].] (]) 18:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: But according to him Israel is not involved, and according to every sensible person neither is Ukraine, but he removed Ukrainian, Israeli and US source, how about that? ] (]) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: Of course, I accuse, since he blanked a whole section simply by belittling the sources, and I even do not know whether he at all knows Russian to remove them! How about if I now begin to remove every, let's say, turkish source with no knowledge of the language, simply because I do not like the content, would that be vandalism???? Your "valid reasons" are but a disgust for every Russian and Iranian sources, and I'd rather desist from drawing a conclusion (for reverence for ¨]), but it is obvious. ] (]) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::That's not what it comes down to Bogorm I advice you to adress my arguments more carefully. I've also asked you multiple times to read source guidelines more carefully. I'm also not just removing sources because they are from said countries, but because you misinterpretate them and add a lot of original research. For now let an admin judge. ] (]) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Bogorm, let's assume that you are right, and the sources are valid. Then you should discuss this matter at the article talk page, ask for 3rd opinion, or post this problem to ]. But making 3RR violations and claiming that another user is vandal is not the method to resolve this, and you suppose to know that.] (]) 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::: (To Biophys) Thank you for the assumption, may I be permitted to ask for yours(see below)? Besides I quoted two sentences from ¨], elucidating the question of vandalism. (To ]) Well, but your reticence about my question about the knowledge of the Russian language is rather aggravating. ] speaks it and can verify if I have committed any wrongdoing in quoting and recapitulating them in English, which I declare I have not. If I had indulged in purging large amounts of Turkish sources and the sections based on them from articles without any knowledge of the language, I would not heva been surprised, if one who is knowledgeable accuses me of disruption. ] (]) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I am going to look into this and am currently working on a resolution, until then I ask that there be no admin action taken (though comments are welcome). ] <sup>]</sup> 19:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Reporting calumny from ] ===
Claiming that the sixth edit ''was arguably revert'' is ''a flagrant calumny'', since it only removes one word, where there is no previous edit, inserting only and exactly this one word - it has been inserted '''', to which the 6th quoted here ''is obviously no reversion''! All other edits besides one have been restoration of light-mindedly erased sources and not only Russian and Iranian, but German, Ukrainian, American and Israeli - it is obvious that the persons who deleted them, erase even not only Russian sources, but inconvenient for their POV and if one seeks more assiduously, would reject them as reversions too - '''reversions to what''' (no previous situation quoted)??? (two summaries of the second person who erased them are against the sources (German and Russian) ! ) ] (]) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:Deletion of texts supported by sources, which are considered by user X unreliable (for whatever reason he explained at an article talk page), does not represent vandalism but a content dispute.] (]) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] <sup>]</sup> 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Eve Torres}}
* User: {{userlinks|Diva411}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
User has repedidld vandalized page. it is the only page that they are editing.] (]) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::This user could easily be the subject of the article, please try and communicate with them. ] 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::{{AN3|w}} It is customary to warn them before reporting them here. I was very close to blocking the reporter for edit warring as well. ] (]) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::'''UPDATE:''' There is certainly an edit war going on at the page, but following the 3RR warning, ] made two more reverts as seen . A short block for 3RR or refusing to follow procedure might still be in order, or perhaps a brief protection of the page. <s>I've made one more revert and a plea to take it to the talk page for Diva411.</s> ] (]) 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(OD)Before I could get back there, an IP reverted DIva411's edits, which seems to be the work of the other editor. I'll leave this one as is for admin attention, thanks on advance. ] (]) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] <sup>]</sup> 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: probation by tznkai; user de-watchlisted) ==

* Page: {{article|Political positions of Sarah Palin}}
* User: {{userlinks|Kelly}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

# <small>(edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per ] and ] per long-running talk page discussion")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ NPOV again")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Lobbyists */ section still NPOV, single source. See talk.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ removing prayer mention per ], undue weight - see talk")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ non-notable quote, not a political position")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Iraq */ non-notable quote, not a political position")</small>

===Discussion===
This is EW; both removing content without discussion, citing NPOV (or BLP, as yesterday) to win a content dispute; and now edit warring also to include an NPOV tag. Kelly needs to step back from these articles. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:I am reviewing this right now, but will also be reviewing all other users on that page.--] (]) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::Inserting an NPOV tag is a revert now? ] <sup>]</sup> 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::This is absurd. Given the number of people attacking the Sarah Palin articles (6500 edits in the last 7 seven days, vs. 5500 for Obama for the entire year) if this rule is applied to editors defending these articles from POV and BLP the articles will soon descend into a basement of libel and wild inaccuracy. This is just like a denial of service attack.--] (]) 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::How something is done is at least as important as why.--] (]) 00:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well, I've disengaged and unwatchlisted the Palin pages. Time to hand this off. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I have to say this is the oddest definition of 3RR I've ever seen. Any edit is apparently considered a "revert". ~:) - ] <sup>]</sup> 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::(E/C)Like Tznkai said, the edits themselves may not be wrong, but the way they are being brought about is a different story and ultimately that is the whole basis for ] along with ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::People can, and have, been blocked for edit warring over inserting or deleting NPOV tags. Even if that were technically to be considered a violation of 3RR, that seems a matter best worked out on the article talk page or if necessary a discussion at ] or a dispute resolution page. Kelly is a good faith editor, trying to help with some exceptionally high volume editing articles, who has not been an edit warrior and shows no inclination to be, so I don't think a block would help the situation even if one disputed the wisdom of the edits (and most people would agree with them, probably).] (]) 00:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(Undent)In my capacity as an administrator familiar with edits in question, I am of the opinion the Kelly is a good faith editor. However, I have to be fair, and this is the second 3RR in two days. In an application of ] I have made this offer--] (]) 00:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
:] has apparently agreed to the conditions I laid out and is on a topic ban for 24 hours from Sarah Palin related article space. Kelly is clear to make constructive comments on related talk space. If this ban is breached, default to standard ] block, and use your best judgment. I would also appreciate being notified via talk page.--] (]) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{Article|Function (mathematics)}}
* User: {{userlinks|Ramu50}}

Time reported: 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

* Revert comparison ("compare"): ().

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# () <small>(edit summary: "] revision 236575861 by ] (])")</small>
#: Remaining edits restore to the version of
# () <small>(edit summary: "stereotype")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "USE the talk page")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "see talk page contribus (dead example)")</small>

* Diff of warning:

—— ] ] 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:I also came here to report this. ] is now at 4 reverts plus the initial edit. I left a specific 3RR warning after the third revert. Discussion at ] is unanimously against adding this material. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 02:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
::Reviewing--] (]) 02:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 03:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Hugh Ross (creationist)}}. {{3RRV|Karvok}}: Time reported: 06:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 237214380 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 237221562 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 237223177 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 237225054 by ] (])")</small>

* Diff of warning:

—] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 06:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} (] did the blocking, just noting here.) ] (]) 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: ]
* User: ] (])

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

I don't want this user to be blocked completely but to stay away from the site ]. He erased information which was given a reliable source and that can not be accepted. so please could you please make this user stay away from this site or block him from editing this site. thank you.
] (]) 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
:Okay first off, most of those reverts are {{AN3|stale}} Secondly the {{user|Be Black Hole Sun}} has never been warned (I have now done so), the warning diff you provided above is that of a warning issued to ''you'' from Be Black Hole Sun and I heed you to take that warning because you have caused just as much disruption as him. I am going to leave this open a bit longer and see what transpires, but I am thinking (and hoping) that no block will be needed here. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
::Okay, the edit war has appeared to die down and no one has edited the article after their warning. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Extraordinary rendition by the United States}}
* User: {{userlinks|Nickhh}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to: - this is a complex 3RR violaiton, invloving partial reverts.

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert: edit sumamry describes it as "partial rv"
* 2nd revert: edit summary describes it as "Undid revision 237146162 by Hypnosadist" - simple revert
* 3rd revert: reverts edit by Raggz
* 4th revert: edit summary describes it as "Undid revision 237168311 by Raggz" - simple revert
* 5th revert: edit summary describes it as "Undo series of unilateral edits"
* 6th revert: edit summary
describes it as "Restore material." - repeats many of the reverts included in revert #5


<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: User is well aware of the 3RR rule, and has been warned about violations before

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
] (]) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}} ] <sup>]</sup> 03:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|FN P90}}
* User: {{userlinks|Westrim}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FN_P90&oldid=237187843

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
Made a after the warning and reverted my warning calling me a "perpetuator" of 'said war': --] (]) 17:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] <sup>]</sup> 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|North America}}
* User: {{userlinks|201.152.199.35}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
*Two previous generic warnings today for disruptive editing. and ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] <sup>]</sup> 19:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Lewis Hamilton}}
* User: {{userlinks|Robbo25}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: (Came before the 3RR warning)
* <s>5th revert: </s>
* 6th revert:

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->I'm not involved here, just noticed it on my watchlist. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

'''Comment''' I checked out the article and the reverts - can't speak for all the diffs but in the last one he has certainly added a source and it cites exactly the information he claims it does. ] (]) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:Was just about to make a correction. The source actually shows up in the fifth revert. The source does appear to say what he says it does, but he's still edit warring over it. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

::The phrase "bankrolled" is being used pejoratively here, sourced or not, and if you look at previous edits you can clearly see this is the intention. ] (]) 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:::He has also continued to revert after the 3RR warning. I've lost count now. The user insits that anyone disagreeing is a vandal, which is hardly playing nice. The source provided is hardly great. A piece in a tabloid that uses the term once in a throw away fashion? I'm not sure it meshes with the other sourced info where his father was having towork hard to support Lewis' racing. ] (]) 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{la|Drudge_Report}}
* User: {{userlinks|Perry mason}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
*{{AN3|d}} Okay, first off this user was never warned in regards to this, so I have done so. Secondly, a few of the reverts are {{AN3|s}}. If the user continues, I will block them (but understand that it takes two to edit war and if the IP continues they will be blocked as well) —Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)<!-- Template:Unsigned -->

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

* Page: {{article|Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders roster|}}
* User: {{userlinks|68.146.103.217|}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

While this is a simple formatting change, this user has repeatedly ignored the template format. All players are listed numerically, I have yet to figure out whether the change is for alphabetical or depth chart reasons. All the same, I have placed a note on both the user's talk page and the template's talk page, explaining the format of the template. I believe this user may also be the same user (70.73.106.16) I had the same problem with a few days ago. I resubmitted this report as the previous one I edited did not seem to be getting any further action. There have been some intermediary edits on the template during this edit war. The correct version should be However, the template asked for a correct version from before the edit war began, so that is the one listed above. Also, the user has progressed into making nonsensical edits to the page as demonstrated here , Ron Lancaster has not played for the Riders since the late 70's and does not belong on there. ] (]) 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} Also, {{AN3|p}} ] <sup>]</sup> 22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Sarah Palin}}
* User: {{userlinks|Phlegm Rooster}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->
Previous edit being reverted inserting poll numbers
* 1st revert: deleting poll numbers
Previous edit being reverted inserting section header religion
* 2nd revert: deleting section header
* 3rd revert: deleting different Poll numbers (Gallup Poll)
Previous edit being reverted Jossi inserting the section header again
* 4th revert: same section header deletion as revert 2nd
Previous edit being reverted
* 5th revert: completely deleting what was just inserted

* Diff of 3RR warning:

Further edits within 24 hours that could be potentially reverts, deletion of marathon info. And other deletions (could be reverting the person who inserted them) . I think this case is somewhat similar to that of Kelly in that due to circumstances, some type of non-block measure should be used so the block log is not affected. ] (]) 11:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|note}} Maybe I am the only one here, but the diff's provided above do not link to anything, and I am having a hard time finding anything recent in the article history that has Phlegm Rooster's username linked to it. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}} ] <sup>]</sup> 22:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week ) ==

* Page: {{article|Sinn Féin|}}
* User: {{userlinks|Mooretwin|}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

There has been an ongoing discussion , and they were told by two editors how the information could be introduced, but kept reverting anyway. Now they have again reverted, adding references which do not support what ''they'' want to say. We all know the term is used, just not by the Party itself. Now they are trying it on with , granted the last edit made me smile, when they cop what they are after doing, but that is beside the point. Likewise this seems to be the next article we can expect . A quick click of the link would have ruled out the need for a citation ]. They seem to have a thing about reverting ? Thanks--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|1 week}} ] <sup>]</sup> 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|James T. Kirk}}
* User: {{userlinks|Catiline63}}

* Previous version reverted to: <br>

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

Catiline63 is a fairly new user who sometimes fails to sign in before editing, (thus, the anon account: {{user|82.44.82.115}}).

* Diff of 3RR warning:<br>
:-To the anon: , <br>
:-To the primary account: ,

I've offered to counsel the fairly new user, and didn't report him yesterday when I discovered the ''seven'' reverts yesterday. I warned the user, and hoped (s)he would listen to the warning to stop reverting. The last two diffs indicate that the warning was ignored. - ] ] 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
*{{question}} Has Catiline63 stated that they do in fact edit using that IP (if so, could you provide a diff, please)? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Yep, sure did. Less than two minutes after the anon posted in article discussion , Catiline67 signed in, and posted that the anon response had come from him . - ] ] 20:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Okay, seeing as neither the IP or the named account has edited since you have left them a warning, and seeing as neither their IP or named account have ever been blocked for 3RR or edit warring before I am going to give them the benefit of doubt. '''''But''''' if they revert one more time I will block. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::I don't mind you giving the contributor another chance, but I respectfully believe that you might have the chronology backwards. The user was warned via his anon account at 11:17 and 11:24, September 9, 2008, and via the named account at 11:59. The 8th and 9th reverts occurred ''after'' that notice was made. During that notice, they were encouraged to ask questions before reverting. It did not happen.
:::::Again, I don't mind the newbie (if they are indeed such) getting cut a little slack, but it is important to note that (s)he were told what the rules were, and the user reverted anyway. At least a small block or stern warning would seem to be warranted. If they are new, they need to know that we take our rules rather seriously. If they aren't new...well, same thing. - ] ] 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Durh! I guess I did not see the first warnings, just the second ones. As such I have {{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] <sup>]</sup> 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|California Graduate Institute}}
* User: {{userlinks|PsychD11}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
* Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=California_Graduate_Institute&oldid=237540713 (blank page
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5ht revert: (as anon IP now)
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->] ] 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b}} This looks like a run of the mill vandalism to me, and seeing as the account is clearly a SPA I have indef blocked it. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|List of Family Guy episodes}}
* User: {{userlinks|71.248.62.143}}

Constantly reverting cited material on article. Ignores discussion on Talk Page as well as appeals on personal Talk Page.

* 1st revert: 17:29, 9 September 2008
* 2nd revert: 17:36, 9 September 2008
* 3rd revert: 3:25, 9 September 2008
* 4th revert: 06:36, 10 September 2008
* 5th revert: 16:14, 10 September 2008
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] <sup>]</sup> 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)



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

* Page: {{article|International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia}}
* User: {{userlinks|Jamescp}}

* Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert: 17:42, 10 September 2008
* 2nd revert: 18:01, 10 September 2008
* 3rd revert: 21:53, 10 September 2008
* 4th revert: 22:48, 10 September 2008

* Diff of 3RR warning:

Comment: Apart from the above 4 diffs, user Jamescp has made more than 50 other edits to the article over the last 24 hours. The majority of his edits have been to delete existing material. The majority of these edits can therefore be considered disruptive, as they remove valuable information on the topic which has been added in the previous days and weeks by numerous other editors. Others have already pointed out to this user the disruptiveness of his edits (see for instance ) which nevertheless continued unrestrained afterwards with little or no discussion. Please pause this. The page is a controversial page which has recently been locked for similar edit warring reasons. ] (]) 23:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}} I have left the user a message/warning, lets see where it goes from here. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Batman Begins}}
* User: {{userlinks|Str1977}}

*Previous version of the page:

*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
**Warning of engaging in an edit war with another editor and request to go to the talk page:
*4th revert:
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] <sup>]</sup> 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (result: already blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Lewis Hamilton}}
* User: {{userlinks|Robbo25}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert: (note incivil edit summary)
* 7th revert:

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
User has returned to edit war on the article ten minutes after a expired, against clear consensus of several other editors, whose reverts he labels as "vandalism". No intention to reach consensus by discussion, his last edit states "The discusion will continue forever and never come to a conclusion". If you look at the user's edit history, there is only one constructive edit that I can see, the rest is blatant POV at best and vandalism at worst. The user clearly has no intention of following the rules and will continue to revert against consensus ad nauseam. ] (]) 00:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|ab}} by {{Admin|Kafziel}} for 72 hours. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 07:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==

* Page: ]
* User: {{userlinks|DX120}}

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:

Use has been adding a win which other editors including myself have removed. Only reason for gap between version reverted to and 3 reverts was a 12 hour block for disruptive editing. Also this personal attack .
] (]) 09:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} For edit warring at multiple pages. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Inflation}}
* User: {{userlinks|Misessus}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
User Misessus is disruptive and by his own words, he edits based on ] not verifiability. Some of his comments on truth: ()
()

Misessus was sanctioned for breaking 3RR on 6th September . He broke 3RR again on 7th September (as shown above), was warned and responded by reverting again. He also responded with a personal attack on the , adding to several personal attacks already made. On 10th September, Misessus made another 3 reverts on the ] page. Shown below:

EDIT: Misessus has just made another two reverts, even though consensus on the talk page is overwhelmingly against his edits:


As these reverts appeared just over 24 hours after the last 3 reverts, I believe he is aware that he is edit warring, but is purposefully trying to game the system to avoid being sanctioned for breaking 3RR.

For more context on this issue, please refer to these discussions about POV pushing by 'Austrian school' editors:
*]
*]
*]

*'''Comment'''. Endorse this request for reasons stated.] (]) 23:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: warned/stale ) ==

* Page: {{article|Giovanni Luppis}}
* User: {{userlinks|Hellis}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert: <small>18:42, September 10, 2008 (UTC)</small>
* 2nd revert: <small>06:24, September 11, 2008 (UTC)</small>
* 3rd revert: <small>12:16, September 11, 2008 (UTC)</small>
* 4th revert: <small>14:54, September 11, 2008 (UTC)</small>

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

Instead of provided evidences stated in the , the reported user keep revert to a POV version.

:'''Comment'''. For somebody that would have us believe that he/she appeared at Misplaced Pages for the first time yesterday, ] has a ''remarkable'' knowledge of our policies, rules, terminology etc. It may perhaps be worthwhile to peruse the currently open ] and the related ] while, or, ideally, prior to, adjudicating this case. ] (]) 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::I asked myself for a CU. I'm not anyone else but me, unfortunately for you. BTW, from where are you got the idea that I'm in Misplaced Pages for the first time yesterday? Im I stated that somewhere? Did you ever thought that I could be on Misplaced Pages from longtime on some others wikipedia-projects and/or languages? You, ] (]), had included me in that "Happy brigade" ], providing FAKE AND WRONG evidences, as I already proved and wrote to you . Until now, you weren't so honest to admit that your "evidences" to include me in that "suspected sockpuppetry" are wrong (in case you were in good faith) maybe fake (if in bad faith...) and to recognise that ad remove them. IMHO you are only trying to intimidate me (without any results, thought) to be free to erase entire section on the ] page and pushing to force your POV. I ask the Administrator to not stop this 3RR violation procedure. Thanks--] (]) 16:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}} Lets see where it goes from here. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|d}} User appears to have stopped for now, along with the fact that most of his reverts are {{AN3|s}}. Please re-report if the user starts up again. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Republic of China Passport}}
* User: {{userlinks|Bosonic dressing}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
The second 3RR warning link was given because the account in question admitted he/she was one and the same person as 67.71.16.7 (having 2 or more accounts). The admission is here.
--] (]) 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

'''Comment''' Correct me if I am wrong, but no three of the revert diffs are within 24 hours. As stated, I previously edited at an IP, and created an account upon being prodded; yet he filed a misleading sockpuppet report. All of this appears to have been done because User:Pyl has a particular position regarding ROC/Taiwan and has been unable to get his way on this article: this editor has engaged in edit warring throughout (whomever that may have been with) and has not used the article's talk page to compel or to get a consensus. In fact, the editor whom Pyl has accused of being the sockpuppetmaster (?) restored and reformatted references Pyl blatantly removed to further their viewpoint. So, if I am to be disciplined for edit warring, Pyl should also be. ] (]) 17:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe that creating an account to circumvent the no-3RR rule is a violation of the rules, even if these accounts aren't sock puppets/sock puppeteer (which I believe they are).
I've only listed reverts under the Bosonic dressing account and the reverts done by your other account is not listed in this report. But the administrator is free to inspect the history of the article for further details.--] (]) 18:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:Creating an account is not an attempt to circumvent anything: you asked for the creation of an account to legitimatize edits, and now you have submitted a plethora of reports to distract and conflate. Whatever else you believe is, frankly, irrelevant. And your long, drawn-out, dilatory responses, edit warring (including the removal of references pointed out above), and multiple reports regarding so simple a notion is inane and borders on disruptive. I have no further commentary regarding this ... editor, or actions same. ] (]) 18:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}} Lets see where it goes from here. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: warned/stale ) ==

* Page: {{article|Controversies of the Polish–Soviet War}}
* User: {{userlinks|Boodlesthecat}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to: where he started

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

* Diff of 3RR warning: user warned and blocked several times, list ] few days ago... perhaps putting him on 1rr parole or something may drive the message through? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:No sorry. The first entry cited above is clearly an edit of long satnding text, and not a reversion (if you look at what Piotrus is trying to pass off as a "reversion," you will see that all that was done on his edit was wikify a name--the edit I made was a correction of an error in long standing text--while leaving his wikifying alone). So in fact, both Piotrus and I did 3 reversions.
:Piotrus' reversions

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

:So I'm afraid this latest attempt of Piotrus to use the 3RR process for edit warring doesn't fly. It's also the in a week. Its getting annoying. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

::No, Boody; you have ''removed'' part of the article four times within few hours. The fact that my previous edit was, as you point out, not a revert, only means I've not violated 3RR, it doesn't say anything about you. It is quite possible for one user to violate 3RR and the other not to. You should be familiar with ], you have done that thing before (reverted four or more times within 24h) and you should now the consequences. PS. And yes, your edit warring and habitual breaking of 3RR ''is'' getting annoying. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Nope, first one was clearly an edit. And since you are being scrutinized right now in your Arb for this very sort of misuse of the system for edit warring, I actually would have expected that you would have known better. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Reverts are edits, yes. You removed something four times. That's a violation of the 3RR (just as adding something four times would be). In that case it's the same ''something'' and your violation is easy to see (and similar to ones from your past). And yes, I am sure that ArbCom will take your continuing history of edit warring and 3RR violations into consideration when they get around to issuing some rulings.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:No the reverts start from the point where ''you reverted my edit'', not from my edit (which is not a revert). Come on, you should know these things. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::Let's see if the closing admin agrees that you can remove something from the articles 4 times within 2 hours.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}} Ok first off both parties here have violated ], but seeing as blocks are not punitive and the edit's in question are a bit stale, I am going to leave both editors unblocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
* Note: clear 3RR by Boodlesthecat; I would've blocked him and warned Piotrus if I had seen this report fresh; it is now being moved to a separate venue, though. <b>]</b> 00:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Monarchy of Barbados}}
* User: {{userlinks|PrinceOfCanada}}

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:

This breach comes not eighteen hours after he was let off of a block for 3RR after making a promise to the blocking admin. --] (]) 19:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:The '1st revert' was not a revert, as there were intervening edits. The mischaracterization of the promise is poor form; I promised not to edit at G2bambino's talk page, not promised not to edit anywhere else. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 19:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb|48 hours}} ] <sup>]</sup> 22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Saturday Night Live (Season 34)}}
* User: {{userlinks|snlfan}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:
* 10th revert:
* 11th revert:

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
Reverted 8 times after 3RR warning. Was also given a vandalism warning. Probably made same revert as anon IP . Thanks. ] (]) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] <sup>]</sup> 22:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:51, 23 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    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

    User:Xuangzadoo reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: Page protected indef)

    Page: List of religious slurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 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.)"
    2. 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.)"
    3. 16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
    4. 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"."
    5. 11:55, 14 January 2025 11:55 "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of religious slurs."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
    2. 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)

    User:GiggaHigga127 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: 48 hours)

    Page: Conor Benn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: GiggaHigga127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
    2. – same
    3. – same
    4. – same
    5. – same, now with PA

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: clarification on style guide at user talk page

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

    Comments:
    User:GiggaHigga127 insists on adding the light middleweight and middleweight divisions to Conor Benn's infobox. Our style guide at WikiProject Boxing, MOS:BOXING, says to only include weight classes in which a boxer has notably competed, that being usually for regional/minor/world titles. In Benn's case, that division was welterweight for almost the entirety of his career, and he did indeed hold a regional title in that division. In 2023 he was given a lengthy ban from the sport, from which he recently returned in a pair of throwaway fights within the light middleweight limit, against non-notable opposition and with no titles at stake. Per the style guide, those throwaway fights are not important enough to warrant the inclusion of light middleweight in the infobox, at least until he begins competing there regularly.

    As far as middleweight goes, Benn has never competed anywhere close to that weight class. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had a similar RfC regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. WP:IAR would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Based on this, it could be meaty as well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --Dennis Definition (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Of course you stand by the revision. You show up less than 12 hours after Gigga gets blocked, and perform the exact same revert. Dodgy. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Xpander1 reported by User:MimirIsSmart (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page: Tübingen School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Xpander1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 974048061 by Arms & Hearts (talk): Self-reverting as per Misplaced Pages:3RRNO"
    2. 06:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270517034 by Xpander1 (talk): Please see the redirect page for adding new edits"
    3. 22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270516481 by Xpander1 (talk): Please avoid making an edit war, I asked you nicely"
    4. 22:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270516027 by Wikishovel (talk)"
    5. 22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270489731 by Xpander1 (talk): Please add the new sources to Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School Best."
    6. Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270482917 by Wikishovel (talk) other editors simply continued my original work, which I respect"
      2. 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Redirecting page the newly created page"
    7. 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 974048061 by Arms & Hearts (talk): Reverting my own edit to contest page creation attribution"
    8. 19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270267643 by Xpander1 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ new section"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply"
    2. 02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests "/* Uncontroversial technical requests */ Decline, this one is more of a histmerge request which would also be declined from WP:NOATT - I'm happy to explain further on a talk page"

    Comments:

    Extremely aggressive edit warring. Xpander1 had expanded a redirect to a page with no issue but decided it would be better to just create a page, hence a discussion at Special:Diff/1270341854. Editor decided to "redact contribution in protest", initially blanking then resorting to redirecting. User:Wikishovel would assist in reverting these changes with Xpander1 reacting negatively, violating 3RR to get it erased. Editor had created redirects such as Protestant and Catholic Tübingen Schools and Tübingen school (Germany), with Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School being where he did a cut-and-paste move from original article. Has no intention to resolve dispute any time soon. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    All I did was self-reverting, the article had no significant history before my contribution. What you are describing as "copy-pasting", is me putting my own creation in a new page. As I have explained in many places, in the WP:Teahouse, and elsewhere. My rationale is very simple, Misplaced Pages must distinguish between valid-article-creators and redirect-page-creators. I currently count as the latter. Which don't think is fair. Xpander (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Wetman and on the article's info page. Xpander (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    The Teahouse discussion can be found (for now) at WP:Teahouse#Made an article in place of an redirect. Please see also User talk:Voorts#Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School and Talk:Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School. Wikishovel (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Like Wikishovel, I am mystified—no, make it stunned—that Xpander thinks this edit-warring is justified. In what sense are they not being attributed as the page creator sufficiently for their ego? Do they mean that the page creation log isn't saying that they are? Uh, that's something the software does, that by design no one has control over. Wetman is going to get credit for creating the page, yes, as the empty redirect it was apparently quite happy to have been for 15 years. As noted, no editor familiar with how our processes work would doubt that Xpander, in practical terms, created the article by translating the dewiki article, regardless of what the logs say.

    Xpander's repeated reversion to the redirect is, frankly, childish behavior that smacks of page ownership. I strongly remind them not to expect rewards for their editing.

    I also reject their argument that 3RRNO#1 shields them as they were merely always "reverting their own edit". Technically that might be arguable, but it is inarguable that, especially given their statement that this was a protest over not getting credit for something no one really expects credit for, they did so in a manner calculated to cause maximum disruption and interfere with the work of others. To allow this to pass on that basis would be opening up a whole new way to game the system. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Addendum: I also commend WP:NO THANKS to Xpander1's attention. Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:92.238.20.255 reported by User:Expert on all topics (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

    Page: Oriel High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 92.238.20.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Updated content"
    2. 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Updated content"
    3. 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Deleted content"
    4. 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Deleted content"
    5. 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Deleted content"


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: This IP is trying to censor information in that article --Expert on all topics (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Widr (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      I undid that block and restored it because simply removing the block isn't really an option in response to actually disruptive editing, but the IP editor's behavior wasn't the main issue in this edit war. I'll send warnings around to people who should know better. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 20 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:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230019964
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230184562


    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)

    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)

    Page: Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270884092 by RodRabelo7 (talk) Reverting for user specifying basically WP:IDONTLIKETHIS as their reasoning"
    2. 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"
    3. 17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270877579 by EF5 (talk) Removing misinformation"
    4. 17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270854942 by Citing (talk) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
    5. 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Revert, this is not the purpose of the short description"
    6. 22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270715109 by Fakescientist8000 (talk) Elon is not a multinational"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 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:

    1. 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)

    Page: Paul Cézanne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
    2. 07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

    Page: Droop quota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 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)"
    2. 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:

    1. 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ reply to Quantling"
    2. 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit reply to Quantling"
    3. 22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ addition"
    4. 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)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic