Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:16, 4 April 2014 view sourceEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,242 edits →User:Septate reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked): Closing← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:46, 24 January 2025 view source Zinnober9 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers52,996 editsm Wiki-link in external-link syntax error addressed 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/Header}}]
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 240 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
|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: Blocked 24 hours) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
;Page: {{pagelinks|Parliament of the United Kingdom}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|X.equilibrium.x}}


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


;Diffs of the user's reverts: '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{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|602098526|11:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 602098318 by ] (])"
# {{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|602098104|11:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1270039369|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
# {{diff2|602095419|11:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 602095187 by ] (])"
# "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"."
# {{diff2|602095071|11:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)}} "If what you believe is true, then what exactly is a legislative body and what is is responsible for? I would advise against wasting any more of your time perusing illegitimate claims"
# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
# {{diff2|602092829|10:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 600474465 by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1270041824|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|602097706|11:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])" # {{diff2|1270040704|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
# {{diff2|1270045411|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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


:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
;<u>Comments:</u>
: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) ==
Has reverted several times on a contested edit he made. Has also added invalid CSD templates at ] , also edit warring there. ] (]) 11:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
*Wow, someone got lucky there. {{U|RHaworth}} just blocked for 24 hours; I was pondering a block for a week to indefinite. This is one of the dumbest things I've seen someone get blocked for, and I think the next block, should it happen, should be for incompetence. ] (]) 01:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' ] <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: nada) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kelvintjy}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Brazilian Sign Language}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Capmo}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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. -->
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230019964
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230184562


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brazilian_Sign_Language&diff=601917675&oldid=601912603


<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brazilian_Sign_Language&diff=next&oldid=602092582
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brazilian_Sign_Language&diff=next&oldid=602098033
#
#


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


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


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
I edited the IPA for Portuguese page afterwards to make sure it was understood why I was marking it that way. A sound file in the ] section of the alveolar lateral approximant article shows a standard Brazilian pronunciation of {{IPA|/li/}}.


Hello
It has sourced content that Brazilian Portuguese uses to make very doubly articulated phones for this context of {{IPA|/l/}} in particular, what is unusual for about every other language. (in English, for example, you will have clearer - less doubly articulated - ells before {{IPAslink|i}}, {{IPAslink|ɪ}} and other front vowels, and darker ells before {{IPAslink|u}}, {{IPAslink|ʊ}} and other back vowels, reflecting their "palatal" and "velar" mouth positions respectively.) Since these guidelines are supposed to help English speakers (or Anglophones) get how Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation works, I guess it's a very significant detail to be added.
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)
Previously, I had already to revert a change by a user not respecting that the sole guideline for Brazilian Portuguese adopts the {{IPA|/ti/}} → {{IPA|}} palatalization as standard, given how – alike the velarized ell issue – people who speak largely substandard registers of Brazilian Portuguese (a few spots of rural folk in Southern Brazil, rural and a tad lot of urban in Northeastern Brazil) do not have these phonological features. Still, people who have my palatalization of {{IPA|/S/}} (speakers of dialects such as these of coastal/urban Rio de Janeiro state, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, and Belém, Pará) represent an equally large fraction of Brazilian Portuguese speakers, do speak registers much closer to the Brazilian standard (hell, Rio de Janeiro is the state capital after Vitória, Espírito Santo to have a dialect closest to it) but still we ''do not push'' for all IPA for Portuguese transcriptions in each sinle article have double pronunciation guidelines just because we have our "s" at the end of syllables getting a "x" sound and we feel bad for being an underrepresented minority or something of that sort.


== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
As such, I regard it as pointless to have such kind of discussion. It's a long-established guideline. If people want Northeastern pronunciations be represented – it is more likely that they would end up getting something even closer to Rio de Janeiro's pronunciation if the status quo is changed anyway, given how ] recommends one to use the Brazilian pronunciation closest to that used in the European nation of Portugal for linguistic unity and ease of Anglophone comprehension issues –, they should go to the talk page of WP:IPA-for-PT and get a new consensus before.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}
I am not considering neither user here as having bad faith in intent, given how Capmo showed signals they didn't see my newer edit on Misplaced Pages:IPA for Portuguese. Still, we can't keep reverting each other, for everybody knows it is regarded as disruptive. ] (]) 12:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ergzay}}
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:I suppose I'm expected to reply to this; as I see it, Srtª PiriLimPomPom is trying to push her own opinion on the subject in these articles. Her changes to ] look like ] and should also be reverted unless she's able to back them with undoubtedly reliable sources; the standard Brazilian Portuguese does ''not'' have the ] or the ] sounds at all (nor does any local BP dialect as far as I'm concerned). —] (]) 12:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::Lol nope. Are you really versed in phonology? It's sourced in the ] section of the {{IPAslink|l|alveolar lateral}} article. If you can't hear the difference between the Spanish/nordestino li and the paulistano/carioca one, you're not supposed to give opinion on this stuff.
# {{diff2|1270885082|18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Reverting for user specifying basically ] as their reasoning"
# {{diff2|1270881666|18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) I believe you have reverted this edit in error so I am adding it back. Rando tweet from a random organization? The Anti-defamation league is cited elsewhere in this article and this tweet was in the article previously. I simply copy pasted it from a previous edit. ADL is a trusted source in the perennial source list ]"
# {{diff2|1270878417|17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Removing misinformation"
# {{diff2|1270875037|17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
# {{diff2|1270724963|23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Revert, this is not the purpose of the short description"
# {{diff2|1270718517|22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Elon is not a multinational"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::The fricatives were not a change done first by me (it's the consensus accepted for months) and the top of the article ] explain why they are there, it's supposed to help Anglophones learn Portuguese as a whole rather than being too specific about local Brazilian phonology (that'd be BTW hugely biased because I have {{IPA|}} for most positions of {{IPA|/g/}} myself, as most of anyone from Rio de Janeiro and AFAICT São Paulo). ] (]) 14:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270879182|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small|(edit: corrected diff)}}


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
The changes made by {{user link|Srtª PiriLimPomPom}} are original resources, and he acuses {{user link|capmo}} not be "versed in phonology" to justify himself instead of using sources.
# {{diff2|1270885380|18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" {{small|(edit: added diff, fix date)}}


There is also a problem of sock-puppetry here, Srtª PiriLimPomPom creates its account when he stopped to edit as {{user link|Lguipontes}} because he made several edit wars against other editor in Portuguese related articles. PiriLimPomPom is not a name, it's a , and the user PiriLimPomPom does absolutely the same things that Guilherme (Lguipontes) has did.--] (]) 16:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:PiriLimPomPom is not a name, it is an inside joke I have with friends from other part of the internet. I don't put my real name on the internet. Regardless, oh, wow... This is a fairly serious accusation, you will need evidence for that. What I doubt anyway, because Misplaced Pages got my email and I am fairly sure that I am the first person to use it so that it can be associated with my Misplaced Pages account.


Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Just because I generally agree with that guy that is no longer active here on various phonological details about my dialect and Brazilian Portuguese as a whole, that doesn't mean I have to be him. Are you seriously being that close-minded?


] 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)
:Furthermore, you are implying things about a person no longer active here. I browsed his talk page and found only a single instance of edit warring (it involved sockpuppetry, but with an IP and it ] in intent). Just because you had some problems with his assertion that Brazilian Portuguese has Catalan-like lamino-alveolo-palatal sibilants (]), what both Canepari and a Brazilian source seemed to confirm (and I believe it since, well, I can hear the difference, and @{{user link|Lfdder}} seemed to confirm they hear it as well), it doesn't mean he crossed the line with you. ] (]) 17:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::BTW, the term "music" isn't used in English AFAICT. It's ''song''. And my English skills also contrast with Lguipontes' (not that I see an issue in that).
::@] 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) ==
::Investigating further... I saw that you have very little contributions here for the whole of 2014. It is weird how suddenly a user that is no longer active here would turn and say something about an issue with such pride in your own instincts. So I went to your Portuguese Misplaced Pages account and you are not very active much more there as well... Seeing ], you seemed to have quite of a cordial discussion in Portuguese in your Lusophone Misplaced Pages talkpage with him, where he asked for your help with an issue concerning the very phonology that we are discussing now (the fourth last one, and it took place in early 2013). O.o Do you guys know each other in real life or anything? I am seriously curious what would be behind the reason of all this drama now.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul Cézanne}}
::"''(O pós-palatal do inglês (como em Sean, Russia etc) é labializado? Como se eles ocorrem normalmente em sequencias de sibilantes com a vogal anterior fechada não arredondada? De onde você tirou isso?)''" There are sources for that... http://www.martinetoda.org/publis/icphs2003toda.pdf just searching "labialized postalveolar english" in Google... BTW it could have been cited ]. Seemingly you went to discuss what is and what isn't {{IPA|}} in that discussion about Brazilian Portuguese categorically lacking alveolo-palatals without a lot of background in it with information that Misplaced Pages itself lists (I've read it in forums that didn't even deal with linguistics). That is half as bad as OR and even so you wanted to accuse others of doing it just as wrong as you did. What the flying fish is happening here?! If there's anyone who looks like a puppet (and I'm not accusing anyone else), it's you. ] (]) 17:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}}
* Why has this been brought here? 3rr hasn't been breached and there's been no attempt at discussing it on the article's talk page. — ] 17:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::I explained it already. The guideline is clear, it's a consensus, and form the small fraction of information I did put there, it was sourced. It isn't something to be discussed. Furthermore, I didn't want nobody to reach 3RR because I don't want other people to be blocked. If they are reverting, it means that they are attempting to build something in their vision of correct. I'm new here and I thought it'd be a decent and okay thing to be done. ] (]) 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
:::What do you mean there isn't something to be discussed? Your change has been reverted; there's obviously something to discuss -- even if that is to reiterate the consensus (if there is one). See ] -- when your 'bold' change has been reverted, it's generally expected that you don't revert the revert. It is expected that you talk it over on the article's talk page. — ] 18:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::::A new section has been created, thanks. :) ] (]) 18:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff|oldid=1271008210|diff=1271008905|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*Good point, {{U|Lfdder}}: thanks. I'm going to close this--after a. leaving a templated warning for both editors along with b. a hearty 'what the fuck?' (Pardon my Portuguese.) Is that what you two are fighting over? And Prilimpompom, do you need THIS many words for a simple edit warring charge--even before 3R is breached? And surely there should be more evidence than "someone's name is music" and a hint or two for a charge of socking. Let's close this and hope that this two can whistle their dixie on the article talk page. ] (]) 02:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
## {{diff2|1271008695|06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
:: For the record, they're now discussing it over at ] (after I suggested it ]). It seems to be often that people can't agree on transcriptions of Portuguese. — ] 02:26, 1 April 2014 (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:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: All warned) ==
# {{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:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Linux Mint}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|JohnGoodName}}


;Previous version reverted to:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
*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)
# {{diff2|601858237|19:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 601765388 by ] (]) thanks for finally joining us again on the talk page, it seems that consensus is against you though"
# {{diff2|602110144|13:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 601882037 by ] (]) reverting you despite your edit summary threats"
# {{diff2|602211331|03:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 602182230 by ] (]) reverting you despite your specious arguments"


== ] reported by ] (Result: Reported user had self-reverted before the report was made) ==
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|602212406|03:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (])"


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Droop quota}}
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|68.150.205.46}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
There more reverts going back at least 3 days by this user so the pattern of edit war is clear. ] (]) 03:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
*{{ec}} <small>(This comment was in response to which was then removed)</small> The previous consensus was against this edit, the edit is unsourced, misleading, and ]. Persistently inserting an edit is not the way to push changes on Misplaced Pages, especially persistent edit-warring by a SPA who has ceased even attempting to discuss the edit on the talk page. - ] (]) 03:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::However, looking at the edit history I didn't realize how much I had reverted that; thinking that I'm "right" is no excuse. I think I should step away from that article for a few days and see if any additional discussion pops up, which I'll do (additional discussion will hopefully happen per the ] discussion I've opened). - ] (]) 03:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
*I've left a warning in a dummy edit summary, and I'll say the same thing here. {{Reply to|Aoidh|JohnGoodName}} (and {{u|Hell in a Bucket}} to a lesser extent) if any of you revert again I will block you on the spot, take it to the talk page get a consensus ask someone else to make the edit. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 05:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:*] I find that to be a curious warning. I reverted ''once'' because of the edit war and the edit against consensus and I took it here as an outside editor that saw the problem was ongoing. That's a rather disturbing response and unwarranted. ] (]) 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::*Basically this was my way of avoiding fully protecting the article, it was primarily addressed at Aoidh & JohnGoodName, however since you had also reverted it wasn't fair or equitable not to let you know as well. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 09:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


==] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lipoic acid}}


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Khimaris}}
# {{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>
'''Time reported:''' 04:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


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


:{{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)
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Effects */ Qualifiers are very important. Alexbrn's previous attempts at "simplifying" were biasing the article towards unjustifiable negative conclusions. A lack of studies does not mean ineffective...")</small>
::Thanks, I missed that (I didn't notice the last edit was a self-revert). ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 602164554 by ] (]) Nope, a negative bias is still a POV. Please use the talk page before you revert any further edits.")</small>
: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)
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 602166005 by ] (]) Then say that there were no available trials of lipoic acid on dementia patients if you want to "closely match" the article. This is insane!")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Effects */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Effects */ per ] inline citation removed.")</small>


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely) ==
* Diff of warning:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tiwana family of Shahpur}} <br />
—<code>]]</code> 04:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Farshwal}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' ]
Of course ] reported me but not Yobol nor Alexbrn for my good faith additions. We had a discussion going on the talk page. Yolbol accepted the addition of the review not finding any any randomized clinical trails as a reasonable. I added this information. Yolbol then reverted my post using ] as his reason. I accepted this and removed the inline citation. I'm afraid this report is unwarranted.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Further more, I would suggest that Zad68, being an administrator, should reacquaint himself with ]. I await further comments.] (]) 04:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
# ]
:{{AN3|b}} – 24 hours. ] (]) 12:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
# ]
# ]
# ]


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Euromaidan}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sage}}


<!-- 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
Previous version reverted to: (essentially this one, with a few subsequent minor changes by other users)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] (from User:Farshwal themselves)
<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
# (and concurrent subsequent edits)
#
#


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
If you throw in a few hours on March 31, then you got a couple more reverts there too.


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


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: and by other users
*Blocked indefinitely.--] (]) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: OP indeffed) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Bhanot}} <br />
This is a brand new ] account (a check user would be nice here) which has been edit-warring on this page for several days. The user is inserting unencyclopedic rants and ] into the article and citing it, first to a Facebook page, then to some blog. In the discussion s/he demands that other content in the article (this one sourced to Washington Times) be removed as well if he's not allowed to have his way on the article. Lots of ].
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|DoctorWhoFan91}}
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
{{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:'''
He doesn't appear to want to : "You guys are probably working together, I know there are many groups like this here just further reveals you to be anti-Russian and trying to score some cheap anti-Russian propaganda points. "--''']''' <small>(])</small> 07:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b}} – 24 hours. Notified under ], since the user seems to be adding their personal POV regarding the Russian/Ukrainian quarrel. ] (]) 14:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
#

#
;Page: {{pagelinks|Arrow (TV series)}}
#
;User being reported: {{userlinks|96.49.72.50}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|602224704|05:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "I work on Arrow as a PA so I put May 2014 because Arrow season 2 ends in May 2014."
# {{diff2|602221415|04:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=602217684|diff=602219679|label=Consecutive edits made from 04:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC) to 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|602219632|04:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|602219679|04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Series overview */"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|602223295|05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Discussion concerning 96.49.72.50 edit warring */ new section"

;<u>Comments:</u>

Warnings available at ] (for some reason, it's not showing up on Twinkle). Repeated vandalism, removal of content, and edit warring on this article. Continued to edit war even after the starting of a discussion on the talk page. &ndash; ] <sup>]</font></sup><sup>]</font></sup> 07:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Raju}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Shvrs}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|602253568|11:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "what's your problem ? i have explained to you & even to Mr.Dougweller...then why are you repeating this type of reversions...this is not fair...please don't do it again...."
# {{diff2|602251767|11:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "i have explained the reason & i hope you could understand..."
# {{diff2|602249182|10:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "I have clearly explained about government's mentioning as Kshatriya and explained to dougweller and also to Joshua Jonathan for his mistake..what is your problem.."
# {{diff2|602241603|09:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "i have explained to dougweller yesterday about that satyanarayana's reference and i have provided references from anthropological survey of india and also other references...so you are mistaken..."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|602254311|11:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

k then, i have provided explanation to dougweller(in his talk page) who is an administrator and for Joshua Jonathan for his mistake in Joshua Jonathan's talk page.Joshua Jonathan is repeatingly reverting the version created by me and then iam trying to protect it.I presume Sitush & Joshua Jonathan are unjustifiable in case of Rajus and i don't have faith in them.Please see the talk page of Dougweller and also talk page of ] from beginning.I am asking wiki administartors to conduct research on Kshatriya Rajus or Rajus with experts in history but not editors like sitush or Joshua Jonathan.Then truth will come to light that Rajus are Kshatriyas and how Rajus are mentioned as Kshatriyas by Government of Andhra Pradesh & India.Rajus are Kshatriyas but Sitush & JJ are trying to keep the word claims of Kshatriya status in Etymology.As i can't always follow & protect the sourced version by Anthropological references from being vandalised.Thank you -] (]) 12:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b| 24 hours}}. However, Darkness Shines, I'm not crazy about your chronology above. You warned the editor on their page and ''one minute later'' reported them here, with a diff to that warning. I can't take your warning into account, and they haven't edited the article after it. I'm taking earlier warnings on their page into consideration, and therefore blocking for edit warring, but please be careful how you report on this page.

:@]: I'm afraid the admins aren't going to conduct the research you request; that's not how the rule against edit warring works. Don't edit war even if you're sure you're right. It also doesn't make any difference that you "don't have faith in" Sitush and Joshua Jonathan, both experienced editors who're careful abut ]. (That's a <s>policy</s> content guideline, please click on it and read.) On the contrary, I advise you to read the policy ]. ] &#124; ] 14:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC).
::Sorry about that Bish, twinkle only gives the option of posting your own warning, he had one on 10:08, 23 March 2014 from Sitush. ] (]) 14:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Oh, I see, OK, please disregard my grouching. I generally tell people they mustn't blame Twinkle for anything they do, but in this case I do understand, because Twinkle certainly makes the heavy lifting at this board (=the diff-collecting) lighter. ] &#124; ] 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC).
:::Probably time for a revert limitation on this editor per ] as he has already been warned of discretionary sanctions. ] (]) 15:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Yes, likely enough, but... I've replied on my page. I certainly wouldn't object if somebody else acts on your suggestion. ] &#124; ] 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC).

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Anca Heltne}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|R0745976409}}

<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#

<!-- 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: Note: I made this just now. It's a shame dialogue wasn't tried already.

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
I happened to stumble across this edit war between ] and ]. User R0745976409 has made his account for the sole purpose of editing the one page and to engage in an edit war. I have not intervened in this war but have notified the users. -- ] (]) 22:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|48 hous}}. I blocked R0745976409 because their blanking appears to be more disruptive, but, {{U|Pietaster}}, you didn't go about this in the right way. I'm not familiar with the article. In particular, it's hard for me to verify foreign sources. It would have been better to report the user rather than edit-war with them.--] (]) 00:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Battle of Aleppo (2012–present)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Dr Marmilade}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|602332155|22:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Renewed Army ground offensive */"
# {{diff2|602310679|19:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 602304806 by ] (]) As Eko just said, it is not your place to determine whether a source is reliable or not with your opinion."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|602332871|22:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) */ new section"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|602332510|22:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* World Tribune */ Cmt"

;<u>Comments:</u>

The article is under a 1RR restriction. The second revert is the restoration of the same content already removed, for some reason Dr Marmilade thinks that is not a revert. ] (]) 22:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the information was already up and you took it down, then I put it back up, then you took it down again, wouldn't that make you equally guilty of edit warring? Also, how do you defend yourself when a user reports you? Is there some type of mediator or "court" decision? Which administrator is in charge of this case? Are those lists that Darkness Shines has up there offical charges, or his own claims. Also, how do penalties work on Misplaced Pages. Can a user report another whenever they feel like doing so? If an administrator could answer these questions for me, that would be very helpful. ] (]) 22:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:Any administrator who comes along will decide, and I have not violated the 1RR restriction, reverting sockpuppets is an exemption. If you think I am wrong, feel free to file a report on me. ] (]) 22:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
: So what you are saying is that any random administrator can make a judgment in a split-second, without any review at all. Also, I am not a sock puppet. Finally, If I go and remove the edit, does this case go away or does a moderator still see it? ] (]) 23:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::If you self revert then you have not violated 1RR and I will obviously withdraw the report. ] (]) 23:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
: Done.] (]) 23:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::Thank you. ] (]) 23:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Discretionary sanction imposed) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Arseniy Yatsenyuk}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Solntsa90}}

<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
# (sequential)

# (sequential)

<!-- 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 />
User was reported and for the exact same behavior and exact same article the day prior. After 24 hour block ended, proceeded to pick up where it was left off. User also seems to be having fun out of spite (personal assessment based on his tone in the edit summary) --''']''' <small>(])</small> 23:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

"Out of spite?" Do you even see what you're doing? Any admin who's been involved in the past few days should immediately be suspect to this.] (]) 00:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You had an appeal related to the Ukrainain/Jewish article topic denied earlier (or today)...does it have anything to do with the fact that my words when quoted or used by admins to demonstrate a case against you had something to do with it possibly? I'm not quite sure, because I reverted vandalism, otherwise, I didn't exactly revert anyone's legitimate edit, so I think I'm staying within the 3RR rule (which I'm not even sure it applies to me, '''since I don't have sanctions against me''').

As for my revert that you say was "out of spite", you had no source for it at the time; you have since located a Pravda.Ru source, but before that, you had no source attached to it whatsoever.

And if you scroll to the bottom of the Yatsenyuk talk page, you'll see me working it out with a fellow editor, not simply "edit-warring". There is no edit-warring, just me revert vandalism, and compromising on the talk page. Let's be honest, you get grudgeful against users, as anyone can see through to your talk page history and comments regarding others. I'm not sure what I'm even being reported for, to be honest.

so uh...what is this about again? ] (]) 00:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:: You have been reported for ], which does apply to you, as you are not above the rules. What you call "reverting vandalism" appears rather to be "reverting to your version", the same version you were previously blocked for. This is textbook edit warring.--''']''' <small>(])</small> 00:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

:::The edit warring notice that Lvivske posted on the users talk page for this complaint was posted six hour after the last revert by Solntsa90. i.e. none of the reverts that Lvivske is complaining about happened after the warning. I suppose this is an improvement on Lvivske's previous complaint about Solntsa90's edit warring, when the so-called warning that Lvivske posted in his/her complaint was a content warning, and was nothing to do with edit-warring.

:::Whilst I think that Solntsa90 was mistaken in believing that the IP editor from Lvov was a vandal, I can understand why a reasonable person would believe in good faith that he/she was reverting vandalism. In these edits, the IP editor from Lvov deleted lots of material that had citations from independent sources.

:::Please could the article on ] be protected from edits for seven days. This apparently controversial issue has induced both Solntsa90 and Lvivske to revert excessively during the last week. (Lvivske is under greater restrictions than Solntsa90.) I do not think that Lvivske played fair in either this or the previous complaint about edit warring. People should be given clear warnings about edit warring, and only reported here if they continue to edit war. That is precisely what has not happened.--] (]) 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::: If being blocked isn't a warning, I don't know what is. Also, not sure about the "reverting excessively" accusations seeing as I've not touched the article since the 30th, but Solntsa90 has been non-stop revering multiple editors.--''']''' <small>(])</small> 00:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Lvivske knows perfectly well what I am talking about. It is being discussed at ]. Lvivske is "under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion". Lvivske has breached this sanction on the article on ] during the last week. Naturally, in a spirit of fairness, admins block the person Lvivske was edit warring with, but have not blocked Lvivske.--] (]) 07:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::: Toddy, your vendetta against me is getting pretty tiring. If you're going rip on me, at least get your facts straight. --''']''' <small>(])</small> 13:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. I'm not precluding any blocks by me or by another administrator. On the positive side, it looks like {{U|Solntsa90}} and {{U|Paavo273}} are talking to each other on the article talk page. On the negative side, the edit warring by both editors (and the IP, whoever they are) is disruptive. Solntsa90, you can be blocked without violating ], particlarly if you resume edit warring, as you did, after expiration of the last block. Indeed, generally, a block in those circumstances is longer than the first. I have no idea what you mean by "active sanctions". I do know if that this continues, whether it's today or tomorrow or anytime in the near term, editors may be blocked without notice.--] (]) 01:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}} Given that the user has already been blocked for edit warring on this article, but that they are engaging in discussion I've decided to impose a 1RR per 48 hours restriction for one month under ArbCom's discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 09:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of Lebanese by net worth}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Bcd3174}}

Previous version reverted to: {{oldid|List of Lebanese by net worth|602216866|Previous revision of List of Lebanese by net worth}}

Diffs of the user's reverts:
#{{diff|List of Lebanese by net worth|prev|602452958|Diff}}
#{{diff|List of Lebanese by net worth|prev|602395964|Diff}}
#{{diff|List of Lebanese by net worth|prev|602385126|Diff}}
#{{diff|List of Lebanese by net worth|prev|602250252|Diff}}
#{{diff|List of Lebanese by net worth|prev|602234950|Diff}}

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: {{diff|User talk:Bcd3174|602251044|602235396|Diff of User talk:Bcd3174}}

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}.--] (]) 23:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Fluoridation by country}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|LarryTheShark}}

<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#

<!-- 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 has been pushing an anti-water fluoridation POV on ] and ] as well.

:Completely to the contrary. The complaining editor is pushing pro-water fluoridation to the point of trying to censor the official European union position on water fluoridation in the ] article.
:And reverting additions to ] in which he never participated in the long talk page discussions] (]) 20:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

:: {{user|LarryTheShark}} is a dead cert sockpuppet, IMHO. It's just which banned user is he a sock of? ] (]) 22:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}}.--] (]) 23:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|St. Aloysius Gonzaga Secondary School}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|SwervingStyle}}

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (3RR warning and level 2-4 unsourced warnings have been removed by user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: Discussion in my archives from February regarding the same issue:

<u>Comments:</u>
User clearly demonstrating ] mentality. I explained the situation to him/her several times in February to no avail (either didn't read or doesn't understand ] and ]) and shows no signs of stopping adding his/her unsourced content to the page. ] <small>(] • ]) </small> 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do take a look at the amount of articles Truth has made and how he has reverted many other pages based on this same evidence which is not correct in many cases.
Thanks,
SwervingStyle
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}.--] (]) 23:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Seahorse}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|User:12.130.161.8}}

<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
# #


<!-- 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 />
User:12.130.161.8 seeks to purge all mention of the terms "medicine" and "medical" from ], preferring to refer to it as either "superstition" or "tradition," and is not interested in citations that contradict these changes, nor appears to be interested in producing citations that justify or support these changes.--] (]) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|d}}. The IP was not warned of edit warring, and {{U|Apokryltaros}} was also edit warring. I understand the difference between the IP's edits and Apokryltaros's, but the IP is trying to discuss the issue on the talk page.--] (]) 23:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:The IP is trying to justify its edits, but has a tendency towards ].--] (]) 23:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean I can proceed with editing that section as originally intended? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::No, it does not. It means that you should leave the article alone and continue the discussion on the talk page. It means that there must be a ] at Misplaced Pages for changes to articles, and if the consensus is against you, you must defer to it. If there is no consensus, you can use other means of ] to assist you, but you ''cannot'' edit war.--] (]) 23:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:You mean continuing to censor the article without bothering to achieve consensus to do so?--] (]) 23:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Trying to get your digs in through the ] is rather childish and inappropriate - try to take the high road <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 00:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul Broun}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Gentlemanscholar741776}}

<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
# Just check his contributes; all dozen edits of his edits are reverts to the same article

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
This "new" account has made 12 reverts to an article in the last 28 hours, please indef block as battleground, coi, block evasion. Thanks, ] (]) 23:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

This article is constantly being vandalized with false information. Every time i fix it, people put the same false and politically charged language back, hence reverting back to the correct information. ] (]) 00:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Gentlemanscholar741776

*{{AN3|b|24 hours}}. Gentlemanscholar continually removes sourced information - that's clearly NOT vandalism (that has a very distinct ]). The items being removed are properly sourced, provide balance, apparent truth (based on the sourcing), and are therefore exempt from the ] aspects that might otherwise be permitted under ]. I would suggest that someone is trying to whitewash this article inappropriately. No comment on block evasion, try ] should someone with similar MO reappear <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 00:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sydney}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|N8-57469}}

<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#

<!-- 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> An attempt to break the syntax for the infobox. ''']]</span>''' (]) 01:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC) <br />

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

:I've no idea why this is being reported as edit warring - many of N8-57469's recent edits have been clear and unambiguous vandalism. ] (]) 03:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

::I've blocked for vandalism/disruption based on the inappropriate responses on the user's talkpage. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Isabel Gómez-Bassols}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Softlavender}}

<!-- 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. -->

<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#

<!-- 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 />
Edit-warring over BLP violations and tagging the article as needing better sources to meet BLP: Self-published sources being used in a BLP that we're cleaning up after it was created against a conflict of interest by a new editor. The article is currently up for deletion, but it looks like we've got enough to keep it. Seems like editors are fine with poorly sourced information as long as it verified (and positive in nature?) - so basically NOT, OR(PSTS), NPOV, and BLP are being ignored in order to include the information. --] (]) 05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

*As far as I understand, making two completely '''''different''''' edits does not constitute 3RR (if I'm wrong please let me know and I'll remember that in the future). Content in each of the two different issues was previously addressed either on the Talk page (as noted in my edit summaries) or addressed (and also previously addressed and explained) thoroughly in the edit summary(ies). (On at least one of the two issues, ] and I have been engaging with the editor on the Talk page, and although Ronz established no consensus and Binksternet and I disagreed with him/her, he made a third deletion of cited non-controversial non-contentious material without establishing consensus, and I informed him that I was going to replace the info per the lengthy Talk page discussion.) ] (]) 05:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
*:This issue isn't 3rr, it is edit-warring against BLP. --] (]) 05:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

:::Ronz, I feel the need to point out that my cleanup (March 30/31) had policy-backed consensus, and from my perspective you have been the one edit-warring without any consensus and without ever even clearly making an incontrovertible case for your edits. Posting acronyms is not making a case, much less an incontrovertible one, and much less one that has consensus. If you feel the article is in violation of BLP or NPOV, then perhaps it's best to take that up on one of those two boards. Meanwhile, two editors engaged in constructively improving the article and its content happen to have disagreed with you and happen to have disagreed with your edits. ] (]) 06:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

::::This looks like Ronz is the one edit warring. I just don't understand what he's aiming to accomplish with his templating of the biography after all of its problems were fixed by Softlavender and others. ] (]) 14:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for the ], ]-violating responses. Please feel free to add more in case this needs to go to ANI.
:::::Focusing on the policies: The article falls under BLP, and poorly sourced information should be immediately removed from BLP articles ("without waiting for discussion" actually.) Such content disputes place "The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material."
:::::The sources are self-published, so they should be removed immediately. --] (]) 15:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Development of Windows XP}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|110.164.115.224}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|602528374|05:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "No."
# {{diff2|602527064|05:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Development */ Insert Main article"
# {{diff2|602525958|04:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|602527723|05:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Development of Windows XP */ new section"
# {{diff2|602529042|05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Article's encyclopedic content was merged into ], remaining article was fancruft and a ] violation. However, an IP editor has persistently reverted. Comments in edit summaries infer ] <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 05:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Colonel Brown Cambridge School}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Rahulsinghpinaki}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|602528897|05:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Notable alumni */"
# {{diff2|602520455|03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Notable alumni */"
# {{diff2|602423524|14:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Notable alumni */"
# {{diff2|602415521|13:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Notable alumni */"
# {{diff2|602370068|04:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Notable alumni */"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|602418138|13:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* And to emphasise */ new section"
# {{diff2|602430192|15:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|602280035|15:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Failed Citation Verifications */ why as a fictional person added?"
# {{diff2|602413177|13:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC) on User talk:Rahulsinghpinaki}} "/* April 2014 */ 2nd warning on adding references that do not establish that entries belong in the article."

;<u>Comments:</u>
Editor used to do this at {{user|117.197.64.98}} and has been continually reverted. He doesn't provide evidence that the names he adds are alumni of the school, he adds names of questionable notability, he adds Howard Roark who of course is fictional, and even though I told him "You really must have sources that say they attended the school. And the Muhammad Ayub Khan who is an alumnus doesn't seem to be the same as ]. You really need to understand this. If you can find sources saying they attended, you might even find we have an article on them." he continues to add these names. Some of them are BLP vilations, and as I told him, he's confused two people with similar names. The Ayub Khan here doesn't seem to be the one who was president of Pakistant. ] (]) 05:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ]<sup>]</sup> 14:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Talk:Chiropractic}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|QuackGuru}}

<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#
#
#


<!-- 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 -->
<!-- Maybe weird enough, but the edit war has taken place at the Talk Page -->

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

The editor has been reverting / making edits repeatedly to an original quote. I have tried to explain him that he should leave the original quote untouched, and include what he has to say into additional comments.

What makes the course of things even more complicated to follow, is that the user hasn't agreed to take the discussion solely at the article Talk Page, but instead has fragmented it to my personal user talk page as well. ] (]) 10:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

:The editor was told to . But the editor did not stop. This was and the . The editor added and . ] should apply in this case. ] (]) 16:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

::I didn't delete QuackGuru's comments, but I did restore the original post whereas he repeatedly tried to revert / make changes to it afterwards. By ''deleting his comments'', I think the user is pertaining to the following edit: . This was a pure accident though, which I already have explained to him and apologized: . The previous link is directing to my User Talk Page, since the editor is constantly taking part of discussion there out of the ].

::In my humble opinion, the editor isn't really paying attention to the main point here, that is his constant reverts / edits on the original post he made. By removing / changing his original posts, it has turned impossible to other contributors in the article to follow up the discussion on sources. His current editing is very aggressive, and he doesn't seem to allow any public discussion on the subject. As a result, he is constantly removing / changing the original posts made.

::So far, the other changes he brings up are referring to strong, reliable sources, and therefore it is somewhat obscure what he is trying to say; the other edits are not the subject being discussed here. As far as I know, there hasn't been any problems with those either (one contributor was actually thanking me for my edit in the lead at the talk page). But that's off-topic already. ] (]) 16:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
:::My but the editor moved my post without stating on the talk page that it was moved from his the talk page. It is not about the sources. It is about the and you are not getting. The . The changes were made on April 1 and the . ] (]) 17:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Rolf Furuli}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|151.66.113.53}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|602574386|13:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|602550654|09:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|602544509|08:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|602436025|16:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
#


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


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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>
This editor received many warnings and explanations over the past few days about the exact same edit but they identified it as "vandalism" or failure to use an edit summary or an unexplained deletion of content. But it was the exact same edit/revert made repeatedly over the past five days. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 15:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
: 151 has continued to revert this same passage, racking up 21 reverts since April 1st (and some before that date, too). <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 18:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Article semiprotected one month. ] (]) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Islam}} <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Septate}}


: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)
<!-- 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. -->


: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)
Previous version reverted to:
: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)
::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)
::::Apologies, I got carried away trying to stop the bot. ] (]) 11:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sock, not bot, sorry. ] (]) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:I will now direct any visiting mods to Tested account , so yes, this should be a ]. I do not know this user but there are multiple accusations of this being an LTA sock. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 11:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::The account is a suspected sock of ], see ]. Pinging {{Ping|Ivanvector|zzuuzz|Izno}}. - ] (]) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I had said this before as well—you are the same people @]@] who want to manipulate the article in your own way and keep editing it to portray it in the same context of that past misunderstanding and conflict. So, I have nothing for you. You just keep putting in your efforts, but the consequences of your violative actions will come to you eventually. I have no answers for that, but when you are found guilty, you will have to deal with them on your own.
:::This is my last reply, requesting administrative intervention as the accuser under the three-revert rule. ] (]) 11:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* I have '''indefinitely blocked''' ]; almost certainly a sock but even if they aren't, they're being wildly disruptive and attacking others. ] 11:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:The page has also been move-protected for 2 days following a ] I made at RPP/I. —&nbsp;] ] 11:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned ) ==
<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|United States Board on Geographic Names}} <br />
#
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Wamalotpark}}
#
# Note edit summary: "moved image to right section" whereas in fact the image was deleted
#


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- 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: plus


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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 -->
# , using their IP, which is ]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
#
#
#


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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
This isn't a bright line breach of 3RR, but is nevertheless edit-warring with some egreggious aspects. Septate wishes to remove an image of ] from the ] article. He as done so four times over the previous month while talk page threads have been open to discuss the issue - linked to above. The threads clearly show no consensus to remove. Septate knows there is no consensus to remove so he did so on the third occasion with the edit summary "moved image to right section" in an attempt to disguise what he had done. When challenged on this he admitted it was a dishonest edit summary, and apologised . But then (in the last revert above) he removed the image with the edit summary "per talk" yet it was clear from the latter thread that he had no consensus. He had he was going to do it anyway because "no one has raised serious concerns", which was patently untrue. I not to do it, but he went ahead anyway.


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Septate has a track record in this type of edit-warring. On the ] article he tried to remove an image twice. After the it was made by ] not to remove the image yet he then went on to do so again . Another editor reverted him with the edit summary Septate is fully aware the issues around edit-warring, and what would result in an AN3 block, having recently had to this noticeboard.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
I appreciate that this is not a bright line 3RR and had contemplated whether it would have to go to ANI. But it seems to me the essence of the problematic behaviour is edit-warring as so should be dealt with here. While four reverts in a month may not seem much I think why action is called for is his MO of ploughing on with reverts despite it being clear from the talk page that he shouldn't, and doing so with dishonest edit summaries. ] (]) 17:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


*Wamalotpark is edit warring with multiple editors across multiple articles, and are making the same edits .-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
*The charge is obviously correct. ], I reverted you because no advantage should go to the edit warrior. If you revert again you will be blocked. The logged-out editing is another matter, a more serious matter, and as it happens I can see just how much of it you have been doing. You should stop doing that esp. if, as you did here, you seem to be doing it to avoid scrutiny, because it's abusive and you are going to get blocked for it. ] (]) 00:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:Comment from the sidelines: I've often thought that the ] article might be a good candidate for 1RR, although most of the time the participants are pretty good about discussing things on the talk page. 1RR wouldn't be a factor in this report, however, since the reverts were more than 24 hours apart. ~] <small>(])</small> 17:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours for long-term edit warring at ] regarding images. The latest example is where he removes a Muhammad image yet again and replaces it with one that does not show Muhammad. This follows a series of image removals during March that were performed with deceptive edit summaries. ] (]) 00:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Mufaddal Saifuddin}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hindi–Urdu controversy}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Summichum}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Augmented Seventh}}


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


Diffs of the user's reverts: '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271341767&oldid=1269162140
# (cur | prev) 12:21, March 26, 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,267 bytes) (-5,804)‎ . . (reference to the claimants own website are biased primary sources , Muffadal is still a claimant and nass is disputed , maintain NPOV)
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271342146&oldid=1271341767
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271342693&oldid=1271342146
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271346369&oldid=1271342693
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271384695&oldid=1271346369
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271389468&oldid=1271384695


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dawoodi Bohra}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Summichum}}


Previous version reverted to:


Diffs of the user's reverts:Disruptive editing which was reverted by me.
(cur | prev) 15:59, March 23, 2014‎ Rukn950 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (31,841 bytes) (-3,493)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Summichum (talk) to last revision by Mufaddalqn. (TW))
(cur | prev) 14:21, March 23, 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35,334 bytes) (+3,493)‎ . . (Added differences between dawoodi bohra and other sects and views from leading Muslim news reports (edited with ProveIt)) (thank)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271427280&oldid=1271423082
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:#REDIRECT ]
(cur | prev) 20:08, April 3, 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (171,338 bytes) (-905)‎ . . (→‎Correction section-wise!) (undo | thank)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:#REDIRECT ]


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271428457&oldid=1271428288
He has been flooding my talk page with template and undoing my edit and deletion from my talk pages. he is mentally harassing me.I am truly frustrated by this user summichum
he was blocked twice before and immediately started edit war after being released from block.as shown above and unsuccessfully attempted to block me. Now he is on to harassment.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
#REDIRECT ]
<blockquote>Template war?
Hello, I'm Anup. I noticed that you recently have been flooding templates on a regular editor, Rukn950. I'd assume good faith and would let you know that we do no template regulars. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
</blockquote>


The article in question presents one-sided information, and that too sometimes using unsourced and questionable sources. The language Urdu is part of the Pakistani identity, and this article does not engage with the perspectives of Pakistanis who argue that the language Urdu has its own identity, distinct from Hindi. It's culturally insensitive to dismiss the cultural identity of another community and dismiss their perspecitives entirely to push one-sided claims that only serve to undermine their identity.
] (]) 21:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}} ] (]) 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::Left CTOPS notice on talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:46, 24 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)

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

    Page: United States Board on Geographic Names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wamalotpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: First edit to change the capitalization

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. First revert, using their IP, which is very obviously the same editor
    2. Second revert
    3. Third revert
    4. Fourth revert

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

    Page: Hindi–Urdu controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Augmented Seventh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271341767&oldid=1269162140
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271342146&oldid=1271341767
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271342693&oldid=1271342146
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271346369&oldid=1271342693
    5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271384695&oldid=1271346369
    6. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271389468&oldid=1271384695



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

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

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

    Comments:

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

    Left CTOPS notice on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic