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 03:43, 21 July 2012 view sourceStephan Schulz (talk | contribs)Administrators26,889 edits →User:Gwillhickers reported by User:Quarkgluonsoup (Result: ): Close, editor self-reverted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:44, 23 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,580 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive491) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{offer help}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}]{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
<!--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
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 190 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of religious slurs}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Libstar and RAN blocked) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1896 Eastern North America heat wave}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|LibStar}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- 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. -->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# {{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:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|1270040704|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1270045411|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<u>Comments:</u> These two editors have been the subject of multiple edit wars, all of which have the same pattern as this one: ] attempts to add content and then ] arbitrarily decides that content must be removed. See ], ], ] for a small flavor of LibStar's incessant edit warring, a pattern of abusive edit warring that has persisted for years unabated.<br />


All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
] (]) 03:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
*LibStar and RAN {{AN3|b|31 and 48 hours}}, respectively. ] (]) 04:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:* Why did Richard get a longer block in this case? It seems quite clear to me that this is a long-running harassment of him by LibStar. Block for edit warring, fine, but why is his longer? Libstar's block should be longer, as he is the aggressor. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 04:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:*I agree that the problem here is LibStar and that the punishment for RAN is not appropriate here. Once LibStar finds that he disagrees with another editor, his preferred tactic is edit warring accompanied by confrontational edit summaries that appear intended to bully and provoke the other editor. I could provide several dozen more, but some edit summaries from yesterday include: , , , It's either LibStar's way or the highway, and while RAN has been trying to add sourced content to articles, LibStar falls into his "Dr. NO!" mode and starts edit wars to impose his arbitrary preferences; It is clearly LibStar who is being disruptive, not RAN. I think modifying RAN's block duration to be much shorter while extending LibStar's block to several days/weeks would be far better justified by the case history of provocation by LibStar. In addition, an interaction ban should be imposed on LibStar forbidding interaction with RAN, as it appears that these wars are unilaterally begun by LibStar and never the other way around. ] (]) 12:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:*I too am curious why RN's block was longer. ] (]) 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::*Probably because RAN's block log is a mile long, while this is Libstar's 1st? ] (]) 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:::*LibStar has been Wikihounding RAN for years and a look at the edit history here shows that RAN is simply trying to add reference to articles while LibStar arbitrarily removes portions of the sources and then blames RAN for disruption. As LibStar stated in appealing his block, he is capable of productive editing, but he has been in a prolonged conflict with RAN and ceaselessly provokes him. The current block is unlikely to get LibStar to cool down, walk away and end the bullying in edit summaries that just yesterday took the form of <b>, , , </b>, while RAN has tried to avoid being baited no matter how hard LibStar tries to pick a fight. LibStar should have been blocked long ago and an interaction ban with RAN put in place; 31 hours is hardly long enough. ] (]) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Tarc is basically right about my rationale. If there's a larger problem of hounding going on, this isn't really the venue to resolve that; ] would be. ] (]) 18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::<s>Why would ] be the right venue?</s> I think you meant ]. - ]] 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I was also utterly confused when I clicked on ]. I agree that LibStar has been duly notified that his actions are inappropriate and that if these same behaviors start reappearing that ] should be the next step for reaching a more thorough solution to end the edit warring and bullying that have been LibStar's trademark. ] (]) 21:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to live out the block and indeed engage in future to prevent edit warring. AlanSohn claims above that Richard Norton is totally innocent here. Richard could have stepped away and ignored my edits and sought advice but simply decide to play in the game, look at his ANIs he as a history of conflict. it takes 2 to edit war, and given Richard's long history of being blocked, failing to engage, ignoring admin sanctioned warnings, I am painted solely as the bad one? I've never been blocked before in years of editing nor had multiple ANIs against me or problems with multiple editors like Richard. Alansohn you may want to re examine your view that Richard is more innocent than a baby. Someone made a good point on my talk page that we both needed to engage and discuss. Richard and I both failed. ] (]) 11:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:This is a rather blatant case of persistent Wikistalking / Wikihounding and the rather sad fact is that you consider yourself to be the victim here. The LibStar modus operandi in this edit warring spree is to jump into an article that RAN has edited -- one that you have never edited before and have no connection to whatsoever -- arbitrarily removing sourced content that RAN has added, accompanied by some taunting in the edit summary. Just looking at the past few days turns up some classic examples of your edit warring / taunting:
:*]
:**
:**
:*]
:**
:** - Yes, this was repeated, and as if adding "thanks" makes the edit warring OK
:**
:You've already been blocked here for edit warring ( far too briefly, in my opinion) and sadly it appears that you still believe that you are absolutely right and everyone else absolutely wrong. I think that based on this evidence (and there's tons more just like this) that an interaction ban should have been imposed as well as a 0RR restriction on removing material from articles. Hopefully the block has provided some much-needed time for introspection and that further action won't be necessary in the future as long as this style of edit warring / bullying ends. ] (]) 20:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:: Alan, I will happily acknowledge that I edit warred here and that this should be avoided in future. I do not believe I was totally right and everyone else wrong as you claim. Can I ask a very specific question: do you think Richard is totally innocent? Many have pointed out that it takes 2 to edit war. simply restoring disupted content is in fact edit warring. Is Richard totally innocent in failing to discuss disputed content and refusing to engage like me? Do you acknowledge his longer block is due to his long history of blocks for various past disputes, failing to engage others. I have taken on board your comments, time for you to ] as the dispute is over. If you an issue with me please raise on my talk page. Happy to discuss. ] (]) 23:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
:] (]) 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: Stale) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Pakistan Zindabad}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Justice007}}


'''Page:''' ] <br />
Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kelvintjy}}


* 1st revert: '''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230019964
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230184562


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
The user is continuously edit warring without taking policies like ] and ] into consideration. I have also requested temporary full protection of the page. He is continually adding wrongly phrased controversial statements just because ]. ] ] ] 15:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}} ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Secular Islam Summit}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kwamikagami}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- 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. -->


Hello
Previous version reverted to:
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)
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: (explaining because this is the only one not clearly marked as a revert in the edit summary: in this edit, Kwami removes material zie has been unsuccessfully trying to remove for some time, after failing to gain consensus to qualify the statement by adding original research about the person in question)
* 5th revert:


== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
These are only the 5 reverts in a 24-hour span; Kwami has been trying to make these edits without consensus for longer.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}
<!-- 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 -->


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ergzay}}
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: : In this talkpage edit, which Kwami saw and responded to before making the fifth edit above, I warn hir that zie is at 4RR and strongly advise hir against continuing to revert.


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: most recently ]


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1270885082|18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Reverting for user specifying basically ] as their reasoning"
This isn't the first time that Kwami has hit 5RR at this article - another time, it was 5RR with ]. See also ], where I begged for administrative help in order to prevent precisely this from happening.
# {{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:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{diff2|1270879182|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small|(edit: corrected diff)}}
–] (] &sdot; ]) 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:Serious BLP concerns, with Roscelese's stated idea that libel or slander is okay if we can demonstrate in a RS that someone said it. Her latest argument was that it's okay to call a group atheists when there are devout people in it, if the devout are a minority. BLP issues, like copyright issues and vandalism, are exempt from 3RR. This is an issue which we've been making progress with on the talk page, and has been resolved to the point where Roscelese is pushing at the margins, like using quotes of events from someone who has no knowledge of them (because the opinions were expressed before the events took place). — ] (]) 16:24, 18 July 2012 (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)}}


::Kwami is not a new user and knows quite well how BLP works, and it isn't about hitting 5RR in an attempt to remove reliably sourced material that is critical of someone's political views (which is what the contested material is about, despite Kwami's false claims that it's about something else). BLP ceases to have any value as a policy when it becomes a catch-all defense of edit warring, original research (about living people!), and refusal to talk, compromise, or heed consensus. –] (] &sdot; ]) 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:::Please point out this consensus, since no-one else is able to see it. — ] (]) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}}. It seems clear to me that this dispute had absolutely nothing to do with protecting possibly libelous material against a living person. ] (]) 17:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==


] 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)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Iran}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Solhjoo}}


:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 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. -->
::@] 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul Cézanne}}
<!-- 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 -->


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}}
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Solhjoo is repeatedly deleting links to "Pashto" and "Pashtuns" from the article Iran although it is against the reference in the info box (where is cited, which shows Southern Pashto is spoken natively by 113,000 in Iran, which is a higher number than the Talysh speakers and is comparative to the other languages mentioned). The same user made the same irrational change in June too. These repeated changes obviously seem nationalistic vandalism. ''']]]''' 16:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nve}} ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 17:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
*{{ec}}{{AN3|d}} - there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider ]. Also, I'd like to point you to ] and ]. ] (]) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dark Ages (historiography)}} <br />
# {{diff|oldid=1271008210|diff=1271008905|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|166.250.71.30}}, also editing as {{userlinks|166.250.71.147}}
## {{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:'''
<!-- 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|1271008376|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
# {{diff2|1271010383|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."


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


<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Reported user had self-reverted before the report was made) ==
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Droop quota}}
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|68.150.205.46}}
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 21:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2012 Burgas bus attack}} <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1994 AMIA bombing}} <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1994 London Israeli Embassy attack}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|207.204.180.50}}


<!-- 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. -->


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# {{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>
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->


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)
IP is removing same sourced info from three articles and edit warring on all three. Has been blocked twice prior. His talk page is replete with previous warnings about edit warring.


:{{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)
<!-- 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 -->
::Thanks, I missed that (I didn't notice the last edit was a self-revert). ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:68.150.205.46, thanks for self-reverting. Can you agree not to re-add the same material until a real consensus is found? An ] could help. ] (]) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely) ==
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tiwana family of Shahpur}} <br />
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Farshwal}}
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# ]
:The IP address engaged in the same type of vandalism against me on a page relating to today's attack in Bulgaria. I looked in his edit history, and he appears to have done this for many terror attacks. I will give a case in point.
# ]
:Consider the 1994 London Israeli Embassy Attack. On this page, in the infobox under <i>suspected</i>perps, "pro-Iranian extremists, allegdly linked to Hezbollah" is written. Does anyone deny they were suspected? Of course not. A quick glance at the article reveals that both the Israeli ambassador and British intelligence blame the attack on them. Yet the IP address reverted the edit , so that perpetrators were written as "unknown" and there was no line for suspected perpetrators. His reason? "iran and hizbs deny having any role , there is no solid proof to link iran." . Now, both the Israeli ambassador and British intelligence clearly believe there is proof to link Iran, but at either rate, they are not listed as "perpetrators" but rather "suspected perpetrators." In other words, they're suspected. This is a fact you can not deny. BBC even reports it .
# ]
:I thought that perhaps the user just didn't understand what suspected meant or what belongs in the box. I reverted his edit, and wrote in the summary box and warned him "Just bc a country and org denies it doesn't mean it's not true and doesn't belong in SUSPECTED perps box... Seems like vandalism, don't do it again."
# ]
:Despite this, he goes back and it - and lists the same reason, nothing more and nothing less, just the same exact reason he gave before.
:There are many more examples of this same behavior that I intend on listing here soon. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']]'''</small> 02:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
::Consider another example from the 1992 attack on Israeli embassy in Beunos Aires, Argentina. Again, <i>suspected</i> perps was listed as Hezbollah. No one denies this. Yet the IP address reverted it , again saying that hezbs denies that they did the attack. It's fine if they deny it, but that doesn't mean they aren't suspected... You know how many criminals lie? If the IP address would just read the section on Responsibility in the article, he would see that Hezbollah (and Iran) was linked to it in many different ways. A Hezbollah-linked organization took responsibility, and both Israel and Argentina blamed it on Hezbollah (and Iran), and proof was brought that suspects them further by the American National Security Agency. Again, it's all in the 5 paragraph passage in the article.
::Brewcrewer his edit, for obvious reasons, and mentioned that Hezbollah also denies the Holocaust, and that doesn't make it true.
::IP's respones? . His reason? "this is not a place for israeli activism. you can't name someone when they deny having any role." Now, the first part is just delusional, any unbiased editor or admin would see why Hezbollah belongs in suspected perpetrators box. The second part is silly - police charge criminals all the time when they deny the role (I'm referring to people who actually did it), and often later they admit it. If there's enough proof, it can go. We're not talking about the <i>perpetrator</i> box - we're talking about <i>suspected</i> perpetrator box. And it is supported by 5 paragraphs in the passage on Responsibility.
::Now, when I noticed what he did on the Bulgaria page, and saw his edit history, I went to this page and his vandalism, with a clear explanation. "read up on what the word "suspected" means before removing factual and important information. Don't repeat this again, it looks like vandalism." Again, I pointed out that it was suspected perpetrator box and why it should go.
::His response? Again he it. <b>So now he just violated the 3RR rule, which is a serious offense.</b> he writes in the summary box - "iran and hizbs deny having any role, and suspected by whom ? by israel ?)" AGAIN, he does vandalism - the article clearly gives 5 paragraphs on this very topic, and no, not just by Israel, although even if it was only by Israel, it would still go in the <i>suspected</i> perpetrators box!
::I reverted his vandalism (this is only my 2nd revert on the page). Again, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I wrote in teh summary box and warned him "IP address, I am warning you a final time - do not continue this vandalism. If you have a question, raise it in talk page. I am reverting this vandalism. Read aftermath section...)" The appropriate thing would've been to go to the talk page if he still had problems. Or to just read the responsibility box. Since I saw he just kept reverting my well-explained reverts and good-faith edits to his vandalism, I decided not to revert further on other pages other than what I had done since an edit war is unnecessary and could result in sanctions, and the appearance already may seem like some to be an edit war (although not my intention and not how I played it out, although clearly how the IP address did it). So I decided I'd file a request, but noticed Brewcrewer already made one.
::Admins are free to do what they feel best. Personally, I recommend an indefinite topic ban from Israel-Palestine articles and suspected Hezbollah/Iran attacks on Israelis/Jews, or an indefinite Misplaced Pages ban considering his previous two bans.
::Hope it helps. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']]'''</small> 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Activism, please take to heart ]. I notice ''neither'' of you have followed the recommended format. ] (]) (]) 03:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


*{{AN3|d}} - No violation on 3RR grounds. Take it to another forum if you believe there's underlying issues. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dhimmitude}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Altetendekrabbe}}


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
<!-- 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. -->


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] (from User:Farshwal themselves)
Previous version reverted to:


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert: revert of this edit (added later as clarification per this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Penwhale&oldid=503092782#3RR)
* 2nd revert: revert of this edit
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert of this 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 -->


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


Hi, I'm just an uninvolved third-party editor who came across this 3RR violation involving the change of "Parmar Rajputs" to "Jats" in the article lead sentence. The editor themself has made a post on the talk page as seen in the diff above, but they continued to edit-war without getting a consensus first at that talk page discussion. Also worth noting the editor had received a in Sep 2024 for similar disruption, such as ], where they also made an edit changing something to "Jats". —&nbsp;] ] 09:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
* '''Comment''': In ] , they are using a slur against the ] caste by calling it "R***put" meaning "Son of Wh***", which is also the caste they are deliberately removing from the article. That in itself merits an indef.] (]) 12:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
*Blocked indefinitely.--] (]) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: OP indeffed) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
The user once again broken 3RR.He was already blocked multiple time for this.--] (])/] 05:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Bhanot}} <br />
:excuse me but check the diffs. in the 2. diff i added back *a reliable secondary source* which user frotz removed without any justification. removing sources like that without discussion, without justification is *contentious editing*. in addition, this diff is *totally* UNRELATED to the other diffs.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|DoctorWhoFan91}}
{{Comment}}Now what should I say, this reckless person has crossed all limits for three revert rule and spamming on user talk with thrustful comments , and he keeps bothering me repeatedly with the same fabricated nonsense. He keeps giving those mocking statements against me for commissioning an report and is persistently stuck on the same matter over and over again. I want him to be punished for his vile actions, and for the offensive things he has said in his statements, which had a bad influence on people. He is going to everyone’s talk pages


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:in the 3. diff i reverted estlandia who is tag-teaming and hounding me. he reverts me blindly, without any discussion at all. his disruptive behavior has been confirmed by several other editors and an administrator here, .


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:the first 1. diff came after *consensus* was reached on the talk page regarding how *you* misrepresent/misuse sources. it was *not* a "revert" either. you are the one who should be blocked for tag-teaming and misrepresentation of sources. we see this over and over again. user shrike's attempts of tag-teaming and disruptive behavior is discussed here, .
#
#
#
#


:just like to point out again: the 2.diff is totally unrelated to the other 3 diffs. hence i have not broken any rule. you are trying misuse this noticeboard.--<small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;background:blue;">]</span></small> 07:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)




::It doesn't matter it was still revert of this edit .I urge you to revert yourself.--] (])/] 07:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:::the edit confirms what i wrote: user frotz removed a reliable secondary source without any justification nor any discussion. i want the opinion of an administrator. if i broke the 3-rr then i will indeed self-revert. if i revert now i would be guilty removing a reliable secondary source.--<small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;background:blue;">]</span></small> 08:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
::::The removal you're referring was a case of removing commentary of something not completely relevant to the article. I accidentally hit "Save page" before I wrote my summary. -- ](]) 09:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:::::please, stop talking nonsense. the diff is there. you removed a reliable secondary source.--<small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;background:blue;">]</span></small> 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
::::::I'm not disputing its reliability. I removed it because it was not relevant. -- ](]) 09:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
I must note that editor constantly change his post after my response so it hard to follow, he was blocked many times for edit warring and he back to the same behavior once again moreover this issue is still under discussion as evident from the talk page but the user reverting non-stop instead seeking proper ]--] (])/] 08:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


:I suspect a ] is coming here, but for now I'll say to OP, don't make personal attacks . Bafflingly, you linked to the NPA policy in the same edit summary. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 11:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
this is utter nonsense...shrike is edit warring against consensus. he is now adding unrelated reverts to his diff-list (the 5. diff). he removed sourced content. my revert is totally justified (which amounts to a *single* revert of his *disruptive* edit.) shrike is now being *disruptive* because his misrepresentation of sources, his edit warring allegations ended in a total failure. he is deliberately making new disruptive edits so that he get reverted... this is a blatant attempt to game the system. shrike should be blocked for disruptive editing. as noted by admin Penwhale i did not break the 3-rr as the 2. diff is totally unrelated to the others. shrike has now added another UNRELATED diff to his list (the 5. diff). incredibly stupid.--<small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;background:blue;">]</span></small> 10:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


:The OP account has been reported to AIV by ] with the suspicion that it's yet another sockpuppet account of User:Truthfindervert: ]. —&nbsp;] ] 11:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, kinda funny isn't it, a sockpuppet accusing others of edit-warring after move-vandalising. OP has been reported to AIV and SPI btw, so this will just led to them being blocked faster lol. ] (]) 11:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
::Could somone move the page back after OP is blocked, they have done it again. ] (]) 11:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah let's give the bots that fix the double-redirects a break and stop move-warring the page until the account is blocked. It's only gonna clutter the page histories and logs more and more, and the title the person is trying to move the page to isn't an unconstructive title anyway. —&nbsp;] ] 11:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|d}} I see 3, not 4. It's also evidently a content dispute, so this isn't the forum for it. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 08:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Apologies, I got carried away trying to stop the bot. ] (]) 11:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:*I'm extremely close to block both of you for disruptive editing. Please do not make me do so. Play nice. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 10:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Sock, not bot, sorry. ] (]) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:** I too would feel extremely close to blocking both parties here – see my previous warnings a few days ago – but I'll defer to Penwhale in this instance. (Note also that I was sollicited to comment by one side in the dispute). In any case, one alternative suggestion would be the following: block all parties to this dispute for a longish period, unless they commit to the following conditions: (1) strict 1RR/48 hours revert limitation for all parties concerned on the two articles in question (] and ]); (2) every revert to be preceded by (a) a substantive, content-not-commentator-oriented explanation of the reasons for the planned revert on the talk page, followed by (b) an obligatory waiting period of, say, 4 hours between the explanation and actually carrying out the revert, to slow the revert warring down and allow for more discussion. Just a thought. ] ] 11:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:I will now direct any visiting mods to Tested account , so yes, this should be a ]. I do not know this user but there are multiple accusations of this being an LTA sock. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 11:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::The account is a suspected sock of ], see ]. Pinging {{Ping|Ivanvector|zzuuzz|Izno}}. - ] (]) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::**Well you became involved as you edited the article I don't have problem with your proposal I was not me who have history of edit warring and made 5 or 6 reverts to the article.--] (])/] 11:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I had said this before as well—you are the same people @]@] who want to manipulate the article in your own way and keep editing it to portray it in the same context of that past misunderstanding and conflict. So, I have nothing for you. You just keep putting in your efforts, but the consequences of your violative actions will come to you eventually. I have no answers for that, but when you are found guilty, you will have to deal with them on your own.
::*** Just for the record, I consider my recent clerical edit to the article as well below the threshold of "'']''", so I still reserve the right to take administrative action there should the need arise. ] ] 11:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:::This is my last reply, requesting administrative intervention as the accuser under the three-revert rule. ] (]) 11:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

* I have '''indefinitely blocked''' ]; almost certainly a sock but even if they aren't, they're being wildly disruptive and attacking others. ] 11:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@fut.perf., i totally agree with your 2. proposal which makes the 1. proposal somehow superfluous. more discussion is indeed the correct procedure. the dispute i had with frotz is now, more or less, solved. it was at that moment shrike became disruptive.--<small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;background:blue;">]</span></small> 11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:The page has also been move-protected for 2 days following a ] I made at RPP/I. —&nbsp;] ] 11:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, our primary bone of contention appears to be resolved. Howver, I understand the point that Shrike is making. Hopefully my recent writing at ] will calm people down and start a dialog on exactly what's wrong now. -- ](]) 11:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b| 1 month}}. Unless I'm missing something significant, Altetendekrabbe has proceeded to revert again after this report was closed by Penwhale. With a clear set of four reverts at 10:48, 11:12, 22:03, and 10:13, I have blocked him for a month. While I agree that the behavior of other editors has not been ideal here, I don't see any bright line violations. Clearly, some alternate set of restrictions needs to be placed on the article. ] ] 11:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:This is idiotic. The three users, Frotz, Shrike and Estlandia have been tag teaming and edit warring to try and get Altetendekrabbe blocked for a month now. They basically revert his every edit on this, and previously, on other, articles. Kuru just amply rewarded their behavior. Message to Misplaced Pages users: bullying others and ganging up on them is just fine, as long as you know how to kiss admin ass. And this "I agree that the behavior of other editors has not been ideal here" is just so many fucking crocodile tears. If it has been less than ideal (in fact, it has been much worse than Alt's) then block them for god's sake.] 12:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
::I have opened SPI case regarding this, as this is extremely concerning. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 12:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Panic! at the Disco:''' {{pagelinks|Panic! at the Disco<!-- Panic! at the Disco -->}} <br />
'''BROBX:''' {{userlinks|BROBX<!-- BROBX -->}}

<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
] has been repeatedly reverting edits I have made to the ] article. When I first made the edits, I created a section on the talk page to discuss the issue. The issue is adding Dallon Weekes as a full-time memeber of the band. The sources that had been previously added to source his addition to the band were not useful for that task, which I discussed in detail on the talk page. The first revert had no edit summary, and the next two called my reverts "vandalism". I entreated the editor twice on their talk page to discuss the issue on the Panic! talk page, with absolutely no discussion taking place from these notices (BROBX's talk page has since been blanked by BROBX). I feel I did as much as I could to avoid this, but the editor refuses to discuss the issue. ] (]) 06:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) (]) 10:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2011–2012 Idlib Governorate clashes}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|DanielUmel}}

<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Vilation of 3RR, user is very keen on starting edit war and as a bonus his reverts include removal of sourced content and adding content from unreliable sources without any rationale but ]. ] (]) 11:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

EllsworthSK has been reverting sourced content that he did not like because of the source. The source in question is the Official press agency of Syria. There DOZENS of mentions of opposition sources with uncheckable claims. But we are still writing them. The same is needed for governement sources by NPOV.

EllesworthSK is using a various range of disruptive tactics to achieve its goal. He is purely erasing sourced content multiples times. He is erasing sourced content while adding other content to complain after a reversion that his addition has been deleted by reversion of his deletion.

And after that, he is also calling other people via private messages to come to help him delete source content in order to not violate the rule alone. The user is trying to take control of various page, including one I created, in order to remove any concept of neutrality in these pages.
--] (]) 11:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:And I am eating toddlers for breakfast, too.

:Bytheway, since when does[REDACTED] has private messages? And since when do we consider state-controled propaganda agency to be reliable? Anyone? ] (]) 11:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, EllsworthSK report of my reversions of his deletion is a little bit unreal as he reverted '''6 times''' another of my addition in the Damascus battle page. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Damascus_%282012%29&offset=20120718151205&action=history <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*{{AN3|w}}. I see exactly zero warnings for a new contributor likely unaware of 3RR, and exactly zero discussion of the issue. Please consider ]. ] (]) (]) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

This is the noticeboard for edit ''warring'', and not merely for edit warriors. Thus this post.

There is no ''one'' user involved; rather, two rather rash ones and perhaps three more who are more circumspect. Perhaps (the wrong version of) the article could beneficially be protected. I of course have the mop, bucket and light-sabre to do this and more myself, but since I seem to have become something of a combatant over there, I should refrain from using any of them. Anyway, the eyes of a few additional unexcited editors would be welcome. -- ] (]) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:"This page is for reporting active edit warriors" , and you can't have an edit war without edit warriors. No matter how you slice it, you can't report 209.6.69.227 as an edit warrior, but easily could report the editor with whom you are collaborating, Casprings. You are suggesting a remedy which fixes no apparent problem, but rather, rewards an edit warrior you are encouraging, by blocking all IPs.

:The key standard to edit warring is "rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion" WP:BLP , or, more specifically WP:RS concerns with questionable material being removed were raised and never addressed on the Talk page (avoiding discussion), and instead reverted by Casprings, avoiding discussion.

:An RfC ignoring the issues to be addressed on the Talk page (instead claiming this was an issue of size of paragraph. The size of a paragraph is determined by the availability of noteworthy, WP:RS material, not the other way around; puffing up a bio is what got us here) was initiated, and Casprings insisted WP:BLP and WP:RS issues could not be addressed until the RfC was concluded, avoiding discussion (unsuccessfully) on WP:BLP and WP:RS.

:After 72hours, a 4:1 consensus (later 4:2, when Hoary 'fessed up) on RfC on removal of the WP:RS non-compliant material was achieved, material removed, Casprings reverts again, against consensus, avoiding discussion.

Could also argue that beginning a ANI:EW without naming a EW, as Hoary just did, with the hoped-for outcome of blocking an editor with whom you disagree, but who is NOT edit warring, thus avoiding WP:RS discussion could also be Edit Warring. --] (]) 16:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

*{{AN3|p}}, instead. I would like to see more discussion taking place on the talk page. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 18:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:Curious; how does this action in any way improve the situation? How does this action encourage proper reference to Talk pages and the proper discussion of the issues there, as has been asked for on the Talk and Article pages? --] (]) 21:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Philip Humber}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Carthage44}}

<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This is an ongoing problem with Carthage44, I have tried on several articles to discuss things, he will not engage, and the one time he spoke, when he decided the conversation was over, he blanked the article talk page (José Quintana article, where he's now blanked the talk page conversation for a second time... diffs here:and ). He constantly blanks his own talk page as well, so while I did place a template there, it will likely be gone before long. This particular conversation seems to be going on in edit summaries, and since he's replied to previous ones, he's obviously reading them. We've had the same problem with him on several articles, the ] article has been particularly problematic as well, since he feels he should revert stats because "they don't need to be updated that often". Serious WP:OWN issues in general on this articles imo.

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

He's already been brought to DRN and possibly ANI recently as well (Might have been EWN, not ANI), if you want more diffs, I can provide them, just let me know. He's had several editwarring blocks already as well, as I'm sure you can see for yourself.

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

*{{AN3|w}}. I suppose he read it, because . - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 08:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:*sigh*... he's been doing this for months... we'll be back soon... and his excuse of "stats were not correct" is bullshit. He's been adding that as an edit summary every time after another admin told him that was the only good reason to revert. If you look through his edits you'll see he adds the exact same numbers later, or waits for another game before adding, and the stats were correct. I have reverted him many times for this but he continues to do it. --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 13:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Political activities of the Koch family}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|24.45.42.125}}

<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert: # <small>(edit summary: "this article is about their political advocacy, not their philanthropy")</small>
* 2nd revert: # <small>(edit summary: "consensus has clearly rejected describing them as philanthropists in this article")</small>
* 3rd revert: # <small>(edit summary: "citation for per-plate cost. Also, see talk for consensus. They are unquestionably billionaires, but their philanthropy has been ruled irrelevant to this article.")</small>
* 4th revert: # ‎ <small>(edit summary: "Philanthropy is explicitly out of scope; see talk. Being billionaires, however, is precisely why they deserve an article.")</small>

* Diff of warning:

<!-- 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

Hi. Am I supposed to say something here? ] (]) 05:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:You are engaged in a slow motion edit war against multiple editors over what the Koch's should be called in the lead ("billionaires" vs. "philanthropists"), and you're claiming consensus on talk to justify your behavior. You can say something now... &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::Well, then I guess I should say that your statement is inaccurate. On the talk page, BoogaLouie, Jojalozzo and I explained repeatedly that the article, as per its title, is about political activity as opposed to philanthropy. Even you admit this, in your good-faith but wrong suggestion that we should expand it to include philanthropy.
::Not only is this four to two, but the two (Collect and Belchfire) aren't discussing the topic collegially and are instead engaging in what you would call a "slow-motion edit war against multiple editors". They're not just reverting me, but the others as well. Belchfire hasn't said a word in talk for two days, while Collect only flatly contradicted the dictionary definition, yet both keep editing against consensus. And now Belchfire launched this black-pot-against-grey-kettle attack against me instead of participating constructively. Really, the problem here is them. ] (]) 07:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

:Claiming "consensus" is not an excuse to edit war per WP:3RRNO. Saying another editor was also edit warring is also not an excuse for ''you'' to edit war. You really should try to come up with a really really good rationale why the admins should waive WP:EW in ''your case'' and not worry about other users.&ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::Actually, I didn't say they were "also" edit-warring. I said that, by your standards, they were, but your standards do not appear to be Misplaced Pages standards, at least not by a plain reading of the rules. The indicator of an edit war is that many changes are happening per day without discussion. In contrast, I've been playing a constructive role in the discussion and I'm just one of the people who keeps reverting the inappropriate term that Belchfire and Collect insist upon against consensus.
::Once again, the problem here lies entirely with the accuser, not the accused. If anyone is edit-warring here, it's Belchfire, not me. It's ironic that he's trying to game the system by accusing me of what he himself is guilty of (and I am not). ] (]) 07:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

*{{AN3|p}} for 3 days due to the horrid page history. For the record - PAC is not really for "humanitarian purposes", and the word "billionaire" is entirely neutral, so I'm calling at least part of the revert warring ]. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 08:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of vegans}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Andomedium}}

<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
*First attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
*Second objection to changes on article talk page:

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

While the editor has only actually reverted twice, he has wilfully disregarded the consensus. Two editors favored adding images to the table while two editors were against this undertaking, as seen . Despite the clear objection by two editors, and the clear lack of consensus the editor went ahead and without undertaking any further efforts to achieve a consensus. There was a to these changes and observation that there was no consensus, but this was completely ignored by the editor who pressed ahead with making the changes, with a total disregard for the opposing viewpoint. There were also concerns by an editor that the archiving was unnecessarily speeded up too so that objections to the changes were speedily archived: .

I reverted these changes and started an ], given the editor's total refusal to respond to any opposing viewpoints. The RfC is in its early stages but so far the responses have been against these changes undertaken by the editor. I think the article should be returned to its pre-change state, and given the editor's refusal to cease making changes he should be blocked for the duration of the RfC so the consensus can suitably be decided and enforced. ] (]) 08:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

*{{AN3|d}}, partially because the edit warring, while there, isn't blowing out of proportion. That being said, the original implementation of the new table was apparently done without it being addressed on the talk page, so I commend you on opening the RFC as well as trying to discuss instead of edit war further. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 08:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

*:Can you at least fully protect the page then until the RfC is completed? At least then the editor will HAVE to participate in the discussion, otherwise he will just keep making the changes. It is pretty clear he is going to continue ignoring all protestations. ] (]) 09:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::*I see no reason to; the table layout, not the content, is being questioned. Therefore, as it's not ''content dispute'', and there's no edit-war going on, page protection is not necessary. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 09:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::*So basically, he can continue to keep implementing changes regardless of the fact that there is a major disagreement over them and there is no consensus for them? So what you're really saying is that to take him out of the picture I have to edit war with him, and take a hit for the team, and we both get a 24 hour block? I can live with that I guess, but I still think it's a little unfair. I'll get us both up to four reverts and then you'll be able to block us both. ] (]) 09:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::::*I did NOT say that. Threats to revert war is also grounds for blocks, so I strongly suggest you to refrain from doing so. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 09:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::*An editor is undertaking edits that not only does he not have a consensus for, but which other editors OBJECTED to. Despite these objections he is continuing with them. However, you are saying he's not breaking the rules basically because I am behaving and not edit-warring with him? Can you not see the absurdity of your stance? ] (]) 09:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::*From MY point of view: the table formatting can be changed later; as I can see ''productive'' edits in the history, I see no reason to block. Please keep in mind of the ], where admins are free to choose whether to protect a page or issue blocks. At the moment, as you have threatened to continue edit-warring, it's entirely possible for admins to block you and only you. I note that Andomedium has commented at the current RfC, which means that at least you can try to come to a compromise on the talk page without being forced to. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 10:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::*Please read my response ]. The troublemaker known as Betty Logan either has a poor memory or she's attempting to deceive you. --] (]) 20:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2012 Burgas bus bombing}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|109.165.140.217}}

<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

<u>Comments: Editor also makes personal comments about other editors. </u> <br />

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

I can see that the 3rd, 5th and 6th edits are reverts; could you show me diffs for the edits which added the content for the 1st, 2nd and 4th reverts, so that I can be sure they are reverts? Thanks. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 12:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:I am also encouraged by ] and would be hesitant to block, unless the user reverts again. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 12:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::And I am discouraged by , editor has made several 'Israeli' attacks. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 12:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:Edit 1, this content in the lead was added by two different editors ,, and was the subject of lengthy ]. The content he removed was the product of talk discussions.
:Edit 2, the edit summary makes clear that its a revert.
:Edit 4 reverts edit.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 12:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) (]) 13:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

** (ec) You bet me to it, but I was considering blocking both editors. The 109.* IP clearly broke 3RR, but AnkhMorpork's hands aren't clean either. He has made at least three reverts too . Moreover, AnkhMorpork's edits show troublesome signs of ]: presenting a ripped-out-of-context quotation by a politician as he did here , in a way that clearly insinuates the words were in reference to the topic of the article, when in reality it seems pretty clear they were spoken in a totally different context, is a pretty serious sign of disruptive agenda-pushing. Even if it is true that some Israeli news outlets have also suggested that connection ( is an English version), that hardly justifies just adopting it as a matter of source. ] ] 13:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Regarding your cited edit, I restored a deletion with the explanation of "heavy WP:SYNTH, because speech was completely irrelevant to attack". I checked the which explicitly linked the two, so restored the content as the grounds of removal were obviously incorrect. I am at a loss as to how you have construed this as TE.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 13:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::::I welcome FPaS to block AnhkMorpork or warn him of possible sanctions. I blocked solely based on technical grounds of a 3RR violation (1RR doesn't apply to ] regarding anonymous editors). That said, now having looked into the content, I do not believe that quote was at all out of context (] is common in international relations where two sides don't like each other). ] (]) (]) 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::Please have a look at the , look at the the explanation for deletion - "speech was completely irrelevant to attack", and explain to me what I did wrong? And this was not the only listed source either. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::If you're asking me: I just clearly stated I didn't think you took the source out of context. Behavior-wise, edit warring is always discouraged, and it was probably within my leeway even to have blocked you for it in this case. You really ought to have stopped after at most the second revert and let discussion finish or let someone else step in (after all, the IP had broken 1RR at this point). A large part of the reason I didn't block your account is because this is breaking news, so it's more important than most articles to make sure we have the right version ''now'' (because it will be receiving many more eyeballs now), so the behavior for edit warring is more understandable even if it is suboptimal. ] (]) (]) 14:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Advice accepted. I will refrain from editing this article until it is more stable and just participate in talk page discussions.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 14:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: Re to Magog: it may be justifiable to say he made non-specific remarks about "blows" dealt out to Iran's enemies, which were ''interpreted'' by some observers in the Israeli press as veiled references to the attack, and as "gloating" about it. That much is true. Claiming as a fact that he ''did'' in fact refer to them, or even just insinuating he did through the juxtaposition of the quotation with the rest of the paragraph as was done here, in light of the fact that according to the literal quotation itself he clearly didn't mention the attacks at all and was speaking in a different context, falls into the "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" category in my view, and in the absence of such exceptional evidence it can really be seen as a BLP violation. ] ] 14:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Weston Wamp}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}
hiroloveswords
<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 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 -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/Weston_Wamp
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
This user has removed the "controversy" section about a particular political candidate, Weston Wamp. For the sake of multiple sides on the issue and democracy, I ask that the section remain. (http://en.wikipedia.org/Weston_Wamp)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

*{{AN3|d}} This noticeboard is to report editors who make more than three reverts on one article in 24 hours. If you disagree with another editor's contributions, try to discuss it with them on the talk page. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 16:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hong Kong Air Cadet Corps}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|IJBDD}}

<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: The fourth revert was done by an IP who used the same edit summary as the other reverts ("Undid revision xxxxxxxxx by Example (talk)"), so I'm guessing it's the user, logged-out to prevent breaching 3RR.

<!-- 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: However, my reverts are an exception to the 3RR rule because they were removing clear copyright violations.

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

*{{AN3|p}} I've semi-protected the page for 2 days because of the copyright violations. I can't block the user in question because they have made only 3 reverts (the fourth was from an IP editor). ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: No action per "preventative, not punitive" and self-reverts) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Thomas Jefferson}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Gwillhickers}}

<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
The editor keeps reverting edits even though all the other editors on the talk page disagree with him on the matter.] (]) 19:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::"All other editors" do not say this, so please remind User ''Quarkgluonsoup'' that slandering other editors to make a point isn't the way to approach the Administrators' noticeboard. ''Quarkgluonsoup'' came to the ] page and started in making , not allowing time for other editors to respond, often removing sourced text. There is no one single item that has been reverted more than three times in a row. All edits in question have been restorations of original sourced text that this user took upon him/herself to delete and/or edit. Quarkgluonsoup's presence and hurried editing manner has done little more than bring disruption to the page and to the discussion. -- ] (]) 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::] clearly states "undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same ''or different'' material each time—counts as a revert" (emphasis mine). It also states "If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake". I suggest you make use of this option before a less flexible admin processes this case. There are many editors watching the Jefferson pages, so it is unlikely that a widely unacceptable version will survive for long. --] (]) 20:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Quarkgluonsoup made the initial changes, dozens of them, major edits, continuously deleting or changing sourced material. I merely restored. If this is a 3rr vio, I will be happy to undo the edits and simply write the sections involved as they were before. My apologies for any rules I may have breached. -- While we're at it, how does one 'check' an editor who storms in and makes dozens of major changes, removing sourced contributions? If an other editor can only make three reverts, that would leave the offending editor to edit as he/she pleases until someone else comes along, and then again, that someone else can only make three reverts. This is an exceptional situation and I can only hope the people reviewing this case will take this into consideration. Also, the ] page has a long history of editors who act without discussion or consensus. -- ] (]) 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::In the spirit of cooperation I have reversed two of my major reverts of Quarkgluonsoup's last edits. My apologies for any trouble I may have brought to WP. -- ] (]) 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what I did wrong, but a longish post I made as an involved editor somehow turned up on another page, where it got deleted. . ] (]) 00:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I have no idea how that got moved either. -- In any case, I have conceded mistakes about 3rr, which is what I think they're most concerned about here. Your opinion that I am a "warrior" is also unfair, as the page has a long history of bloat, pov, so forth. At one time the 'Hemings controversy section was more than and filled with pov and one sided conjecture. There was a ] so there is and has always been ''plenty'' of reasons to look after the page -- and as edit history will reveal, I am not the only "persistent warrior" to the page. And may I also say in my own defense I have never edited/deleted material in the Jefferson page at a rate as we have just seen here. This whole issue was highly provoked and is typical of the past trouble we have had to deal with on the Jefferson page. -- ] (]) 01:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Gwillickers is one of two persistent warriors during the time I've been at TJ, maybe a year. He's unhappy because QGSoup has messed with his article. Gw' similarly did an indignant total revert to recent changes (improvements, imo) I made; I just didn't fight back.
::::Looking at QGSoup's contributions, his editing style seems to be to blitz through one article after another. He may take notice that a better way to help build the encyclopedia is to engage with longtime editors at any given article; collaboration is fundamental to the project. ] (]) 03:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

* User has understood the violation and self-reverted. There is spirited discussion with some ownership problems at the Jefferson articles, but I'm closing this for now.. Some additional admin attention at the articles would be welcome. --] (]) 03:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Thomas Sowell}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Arzel}}

<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:
*
*

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


<u>Comments:</u> Arzel has removed large amounts of content and has not justified the second specific removal in the talk page despite repeated calls for ]. ] (]) 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Are you aware that ''you'' are also edit warring and are subject to a block? That's called WP:BOOMERANG. And boy is it a bitch. Btw what's up with asking other editors to keep your edit wars going when you reach 3RR? That's called WP:MEAT. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

::I made exactly two reverts. The first removal was after a period of 3 days time under which no justification was made for the inclusion of non-notabl criticism of a living person. The insertion of the criticism at that time did not have concensus, but I thought I would see if any valid reason would be given for the inclusion, or if main-stream sources had discussed the controvery in order to validate weight. No main-stream sources were commenting on the supposed controversy, only left wing sites.. I my edit on the talk page and recieved no discussion from Cartoon Diablo. One of the sources which had been added is which is definately not a reliable source for a BLP. ] (]) 23:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

::FTR, CD attempt to use another editor to violate . ] (]) 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

] has been full protected for 7 days or until this content dispute is resolved. ] (]) 23:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:44, 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)

    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)

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

    Page: Tiwana family of Shahpur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Farshwal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10:20–10:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    2. 10:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    3. 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    4. 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

    I suspect a WP:BOOMERANG is coming here, but for now I'll say to OP, don't make personal attacks as you did here. Bafflingly, you linked to the NPA policy in the same edit summary. — Czello 11:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    The OP account has been reported to AIV by User:Ratnahastin with the suspicion that it's yet another sockpuppet account of User:Truthfindervert: diff. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, kinda funny isn't it, a sockpuppet accusing others of edit-warring after move-vandalising. OP has been reported to AIV and SPI btw, so this will just led to them being blocked faster lol. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Could somone move the page back after OP is blocked, they have done it again. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah let's give the bots that fix the double-redirects a break and stop move-warring the page until the account is blocked. It's only gonna clutter the page histories and logs more and more, and the title the person is trying to move the page to isn't an unconstructive title anyway. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Apologies, I got carried away trying to stop the bot. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sock, not bot, sorry. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will now direct any visiting mods to Tested account clearly edit warring, so yes, this should be a WP:BOOMERANG. I do not know this user but there are multiple accusations of this being an LTA sock. — Czello 11:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    The account is a suspected sock of Truthfindervert, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Summerbreakcooldown. Pinging @Ivanvector, Zzuuzz, and Izno:. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I had said this before as well—you are the same people @Czello@DoctorWhoFan91 who want to manipulate the article in your own way and keep editing it to portray it in the same context of that past misunderstanding and conflict. So, I have nothing for you. You just keep putting in your efforts, but the consequences of your violative actions will come to you eventually. I have no answers for that, but when you are found guilty, you will have to deal with them on your own.
    This is my last reply, requesting administrative intervention as the accuser under the three-revert rule. Tested account (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    The page has also been move-protected for 2 days following a request for move protection I made at RPP/I. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic