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 13:17, 21 July 2014 view sourceDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,294 edits →User:Jmh649 (Doc James) reported by User:Technophant (Result: )← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:46, 24 January 2025 view source Zinnober9 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers52,996 editsm Wiki-link in external-link syntax error addressed 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
{{no admin backlog}}
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/Header}}]
<!--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 = 250 |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: stale) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
;Page: {{pagelinks|Mesut Özil}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Maurice Flesier}}


;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|616895240|10:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Özil is Turkish origin German."
# {{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|616904479|12:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Some fixes?? To remove ethnicity, not an satisfactory explanation."
# {{diff2|1270039369|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
# {{diff2|616922814|15:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 616913338 by ] (]) Before the back, please discuss on the talk page!"
# "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|616944765|18:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 616939465 by ] (])"
* # "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
This is three days later, but there is still no consensus here.
# {{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|616913374|14:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])" # {{diff2|1270040704|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
# {{diff2|616993409|02:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* July 2014 */ +" # {{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) ==
Editor is aware of 3RR, ], ]. ] (]) 02:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:A solution to this problem was "German-Turkish footballer". I agree that the user has breached openpara, mosbio and 3rr. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 04:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. There is an ongoing report at ANI about Walter's behavior generally. Regarding the 3RR report here, it's a bit hard to evaluate ''other'' editors' conduct on the page because there's so much activity on the article, both by named accounts and IPs, and some of it involves content disputes, whereas some of it is just obvious vandalism.--] (]) 14:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:: I made a single revert there over the time period so please do not cloud the issue Bbb23. The issue is simple: the editor made four reverts here trying to impose a specific version of the article against four separate editors: two registered and two anon. The editor then singled me out on the talk page as I was the only editor involved. This is a clear-cut case. If the editor is not blocked I would expect a detailed explanation as to why this editor can get away with violating 3RR even after being reported, and "stale" is not detailed. ] (]) 03:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' ] <br />
* {{AN3|s}} - ] <small>(])</small> 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kelvintjy}}
: Don't you dare! Block him. I get blocked for making four edits with guidelines to support my edits with an anon who doesn't explain the edits being made, while this editor makes four reverts against two editors and two anons, and the latter three were all clearly explained. I engage in talk page while this editor make personal attacks on talk page. This is another reason why it's obvious that edit warring is fine in the eyes of some new editors. ] (]) 04:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ramadan}} </br>
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hajj}}
# 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


Please speak with ] about his edits on ] and ]. He is edit warring on both. The main discussion is at the talkpage of ], where he has been active in the last 4 posts. So far only 2 editors have posted in them, disagreeing. He is aggressive and unpleasant, and simply misunderstands ]. Please see his userpage that I suspect him to be less than neutral on the subject, as in ]. ] (]) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
::The cheek, so If I am edit warring what exactly are you doing. Beware of ] Here is your history it is strange that you come and say they should talk to me. I did my fair share but my friend you are hiding behind 3rr to ] you have not used the talk page to settle anything, only to edit how you want, and then hold a discussion (reminds me of a certain country) See Your own user page, talk about Pot calling kettle black LOL. --] (]) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
::: I am active replying to you on the talkpages of those 2 articles, with over 20 edits today. Is that how you proof all your arguments?
:::: I know ], but I also know that I edit according to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, which you are misunderstanding and misusing, supposedly to make a ] connected with your ]. ] (]) 20:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Not sure your point, Are you not engaged in the edit war you are reporting? Or am I edit warring with your twin? Do you know what this space is for? So why are you discussing ] here? there is a dispute or request for comments for that kind of stuff. And I also have "suspect" about you per your colorful userpage. Anyone can make accusations, making mature points is another thing. So per your contributions you have done more edit warring than me, and on two articles got your version inserted, yet you tell me about Edit warring.? --] (]) 20:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: You can not remove sourced information without good reason, and your reasons are challenged by 2 editors. They actually have been proven wrong already. That leaves us with you edit warring for the sake of edit warring. So why shouldn't I tell you about edit warring? ] (]) 21:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::If my reasons were so wrong why then did you have to go and change this ? So you were reverting me and never check out my objections. Clearly I was not wrong. Now Two editors means nothing, what counts is the ability to make a case using Policy. We do not ] and the talk page shows clearly who started the off key remarks, imagine lecturing me about what I know. I never did that, I simply copy and pasted policy for you to see. This nonsense of "You do not know what you are talking about" is for teenagers, it is only you saying so, argue by rationale not "You are wrong", that is just below me. Now the question for bonus prizes, Since you know about Misplaced Pages, What does[REDACTED] say about handling Disputes? Did you follow that? '''What is Wiki policy for avoiding Edit war show the people here the steps you took to avoid it.'''If I am guilty you are equally so. --] (]) 21:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::For the record this is the remark that started the whole thing going South: No idea why this remark was made? Who is this guy to talk for so many other editors?--] (]) 21:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}}. {{U|Debresser}} and {{U|Inayity}}, you are both warned that if you continue this battle in the article, you may be blocked without any further notice or warning, regardless of whether you breached ]. The only reason you're not being blocked now is because you both skirted 3RR by the skin of your collective teeth. Debresser, if you want to report disruptive conduct, take it to another noticeboard. If you want to report edit warring, then file an appropriate report with a proper header and diffs.--] (]) 21:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:: Bbb23 (or other willing editors) I posted this way because I wanted somebody to explain to Inayity what he is doing, not to have him punished. He should be stopped from removing information he doesn't like. He continues with , which is so wrong because 1. it was discussed 2. the info is well sourced 3. he is ] Misplaced Pages. Can you explain this to him? If not, where should I take this? ] (]) 09:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:::If you want to raise Inayity's conduct but not have him sanctioned for edit warring, then take it to ]. Make sure you're clear what you're asking for. I make no prediction as to whether such a report will be received favorably.--] (]) 21:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: Thank you. Yes, raising his conduct was my specifically stated intention. I have some experience at WP:ANI, and am not favorably impressed with that forum. I was convinced the edit warring noticeboard should be the more logical venue for this issue. ] (]) 18:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lo que la vida me robó}} <br />'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|La malquerida (telenovela)}}<br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mario252}}


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


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#


Hello
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
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-->
Hello, sought to punish this person, because I'm tired of explaining about their issues, all it does is ignore my messages and delete them, which seems to me a lack of respect by the user, the same user if read messages but ignores them. On the issues generated wars and explain my reasons, but he did not seem to care nothing and continue with the same, nor cares to reach consensus. I have placed a complaint , but I see that so far no decision was taken, and as time passes the user continues to fall in edit wars with me and as I have tried to explain in his discussion but is useless.--<b>]</b> ] 06:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}} ] (]) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Hey someone can address my request, please?.--<b>]</b> ] 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
*:@] you blocked this user from the page ] in Aug. 2024 for the same reasons. ] (]) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*: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)
* {{AN3|b|31 hours}} - ] <small>(])</small> 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: decline) == == ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==


;Page: {{pagelinks|Operation Protective Edge}} '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Al-Andalusi}}


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617321532|14:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Casualties and losses */ remove opinion and OR" this revert of this edit
# {{diff2|617205265|17:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* top */ partial revert of Irondome's change" revert of this edit


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{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: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|617332163|16:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])" # {{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: '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|1270885380|18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" {{small|(edit: added diff, fix date)}}




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


The article is part of ] and under 1RR. I have asked the user to revert himself. ] (])/] 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


] seems to be making a mistake here as several of those edits were of different content. You can't just list every single revert and call it edit warring. And the brief edit warring that did happen stopped as I realized I was reverting the wrong thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1270879523 ] (]) 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
An edit war? ] (]) 18:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:Are you going to revert yourself?--] (])/] 18:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
::And which edit is that? I'm asking because myself and the rest of the involved editors have not been part of a dispute let alone an "edit war". ] (]) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:::You made two reverts of two different users.You may undo your last revert ] (])/] 19:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
::::The last one is in agreement with ]. I fail to see the issue here. ] (]) 19:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::The issue is you made two reverts to ] article .--] (])/] 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Comment'''. Shrike, could you do me the courtesy of examining the 4 cases I cited I'm still not certain I understand this rule, but since you do, tell me why (a) those are not examples of what you consider to be edit-warring on the same page (b) if they are, why did you ignore them? ] (]) 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
::@] 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)
::::].If you think that someone else broke 1RR please report him.Don't ask any one to do you your job for you--] (])/] 05:55, 18 July 2014 (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)
:::::Absolutely no. I don't want to stain my excellent record as someone who refuses to take people to arbitration. I didn't ask people to do my job. I did the work, and asked for a judgement. 3 major breaking news articles were written because editors from different POV, once on my suggestion, agreed not to use the IR as an instrument to gain editorial advantages. All the article builders broke it on those three pages, and no one was reported because we peons committed to the composition of articles, and not I/P warring games, know you just cannot write those articles and not break the rule, because it means that after an alteration, everything else all editors can do for 24 hours is just pile in more information regardless of the dissonance and unreadability this would cause. I don't chase 1R infractions or aste time combing someone's contribs to find if I can get him off the page, and make life comfortable for one of two POVs: I look to the merit of each edit, and if it is good or sound, I approve. If it is lousy, I mark it for correction, hoping someone else sights it if I can't revert it. The rule exists to enable article creation, not to create obstacles and enmity among collegues.] (]) 07:42, 18 July 2014 (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)
*{{AN3|n}}. This is getting tiresome. On a narrow technical level, if Al-Andalusi had not stated in the edit sumary that the first edit was a partial revert, other than the change of the word "claimed" to "announced", I wouldn't even notice it. Plus, I don't even know which edit of {{U|Irondome}}'s, Al-Andalusi is partly reverting. The second diff is clearly a revert. So, thee may not even be a 1RR violation here, not sure. There is no exemption from 1RR because an article is a current event that is being heavily edited by many, many users with an eye to improving the information and the sources. For one thing, it's hard for an administrator to sort out that kind of content analysis. God knows I'm relatively aggressive when it comes to blocking editors for violating 3RR or for violating 1RR in contravention of ArbCom sanctions, but even I am not favorably impressed by these reports. I strongly urge ''anyone'' who wants to file such a report about this particular article to go to ]. Again, I'm not taking any action here (I officially alerted Al-Andalusi of the sanctions), although another administrator is free to do whatever he or she deems appropriate as I'm not closing the report.--] (]) 21:39, 17 July 2014 (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)
::I have fixed the report.
:::::]: {{tq|There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons}}. – ] (]) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. ] (]) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. ] (]) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
:The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. ] (]) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. ] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording followed by after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. ] (]) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::What is a CTOP? ] (]) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::A CTOP is a ]. ] (]) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages.}} If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. ] (]) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. ] (]) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This is an incorrect characterization of the discussion. The people you were edit warring with said, correctly, that he was accused of having made what looks like the Nazi salute. As you know from the video and the sources provided, this is objectively correct. You just don't like the fact that reliable sources said this about him. Nobody is trying to put "Elon Musk is a Nazi" in the article. ] (]) 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
: Based on the comment in response to the notification for this discussion, {{tq|"I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it"}}, I was quite surprised to see that the editor didn't acquire an understanding of 3RR when in 2020. That's sometime ago granted, but additionally a lack of awareness of CTOP, when there is an edit notice at Musk's page regarding BLP policy, is highly suggestive of ]. This in addition to the 3RR warning that was ignored, followed by continuing to revert other editors, and eventually arguing that it must be because I am wrong. If there is an essay based on "Everyone else must be wrong because I'm always right" I'd very much like to read it. As for this report, I primarily wanted to nip the edit war in the bud which appears to have worked for now, given the talk page warning failed to achieve anything. I otherwise remain concerned about the general ] based indicators; disruptive editing, battleground attitude, and lack of willingness to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner. ] (]) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given that ''some'' of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that covers ''all'' edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with the ''letter'', but not the ''spirit'', of 3RR (In other words, another case of ])) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS. ] (]) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We are likely to see Ergzay at ANI at some point. But as I was thinking of asking for 1RR early today; I'm fine with that decision. ] (]) 00:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Good decision. I otherwise think a final warning for edit warring is appropriate, given the 3RR violation even excluding BLPREMOVE reverts (first 4 diffs to be specific). There's nothing else to drag out here given Ergzay intends to take a step back from the Musk article, and per above, there is always the ANI route for any future incidents. ] (]) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] My statement that you quoted there is because I'm a divisive person and people often don't like how I act on Misplaced Pages and the edits I make. People have dragged me to this place several times in the past over the years and I've always found it reasonably fair against people who are emotionally involved against dragging me down. That is why I said what I did. And as to the previous warning that you claim was me "not getting it", that was 3 reverts of the same material, and with a name 3RR the association is automatic. Edit: And I'll additionally add, I'm most certainly interested in building an accurate encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources. I'm still very happy to use sources that exist and they should be used whenever possible, but in this modern day and age of heavily politicized and biased media, editors more than ever need to have wide open eyes and use rational thinking. ] (]) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"''Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources''" See ]. ] (]) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::And ], while you're at it. ] (]) 19:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::"Use wide open eyes and use rational thinking (as defined by me)" seems to implicate ], as well. ] (]) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected one week; IP range blocked two weeks) ==
* {{AN3|d}}. Bbb23 says everything I would say. - ] <small>(])</small> 14:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul Cézanne}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ferdinand I of Romania}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|FactStraight}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
]</br>
# {{diff|oldid=1271008210|diff=1271008905|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
## {{diff2|1271008695|06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|1271008905|06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1271007344|06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1271006989|06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
#


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>The "editing war" turns grotesque in my opinion. I think it is due time that you put an end to such destructive attitudes which scare away in disgust any decent editor: already 10x time spent waging editing wars than usefully editing...</u> <br /> ] (]) 05:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1271008376|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
:I haven't checked the page (nor does it appear that I will have time to), but I don't see any diffs. {{nao}} ]&nbsp;] 06:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1271010383|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."
::FactStraight has only made one edit to the article since it was created. ] (]) 13:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1979 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
also<br>
{{pagelinks|1980 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1981 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1982 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1983 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1984 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1985 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1986 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1987 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1988 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1989 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1990 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1991 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1992 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1993 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|2014 International V8 Supercars Championship}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Therock9998}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- 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. -->
*This is straight-up vandalism. {{U|BusterD}} semi-protected the article for one week, and I've blocked ] for two weeks.--] (]) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Reported user had self-reverted before the report was made) ==
Previous version reverted to:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Droop quota}}
<!-- 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 on ] the others are much the same):
# 01:45, July 17, 2014
# 00:01, July 18, 2014
# 01:13, July 18, 2014
# 02:56, July 18, 2014
# 07:31, July 18, 2014
# 08:19, July 18, 2014
and now
# 09:02, July 18, 2014


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|68.150.205.46}}
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{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:'''
On going attempts to get involved user to cease damaging table coding. Evaded a block when applied as an ] by establishing this User ID. I hesitate to say Sock Puppetting as this is plainly a new user and would not understanding either the terminology or that it is considered poor etiquette. Refuses to communicate with other editors. Am at a complete loss, and I have probably overstepped the line myself attempting and tender my apologies. ] (]) 09:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:No he or she is just being disruptive and a vandal. On going vandalistic edits across a couple of dozen Australian motorsport articles. --] (]) 09:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|two weeks}}. I also blocked {{user2|110.174.5.183}} for two weeks who is obviously the same person. The named account was created just shortly after the IP was blocked before.--] (]) 14:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page deleted and salted) ==


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Jake Borras}}
# {{diff2|1270714484|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ reply to Quantling"
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Jhakeyborras}}
# {{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>
;Previous version reverted to:


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 of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617449075|12:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|617448660|12:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|617446923|12:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|617446501|12:24, 18 July 2014 (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)
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
::Thanks, I missed that (I didn't notice the last edit was a self-revert). ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
# {{diff2|617444416|12:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Notifying author of deletion nomination for ]"
: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)
# {{diff2|617446463|12:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Notifying author of deletion nomination for ]"
# {{diff2|617447202|12:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|617448865|12:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Notifying author of deletion nomination for ]"


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely) ==
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tiwana family of Shahpur}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Farshwal}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Constant removal of templates when user is creator of page that is being templates. ] (]) 12:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]


*{{AN3|p}} A user trying to persistently create an autobio. The article has been deleted three times in rapid succession and now salted. --] (]) 13:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==


;Page: {{pagelinks|Jose Antonio Vargas}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|2601:9:8180:E85:5977:B6:354C:5E2F}}


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
;Previous version reverted to:


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] (from User:Farshwal themselves)
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617271230|05:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617271067 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|617313191|13:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617282169 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|617326832|15:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|617396901|01:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617364972 by ] (]) Please stop edit warring Gamaliel"
# {{diff|oldid=617431684|diff=617457234|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC) to 14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|617456390|14:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|617457234|14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617370999|21:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"


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


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


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Bhanot}} <br />
The user has been edit-warring to put similar material into this page for a couple of days. He's reverting against multiple users, including me. The material has ] issues and sourcing issues. Although one solution is to semi-protect the article, the IP is the only one who is battling; thus, that seems unfair to any other non-autoconfirmed user. Although I did not include even earlier edits to the article, the IP is a ]. ] (]) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|DoctorWhoFan91}}
{{Comment}}Now what should I say, this reckless person has crossed all limits for three revert rule and spamming on user talk with thrustful comments , and he keeps bothering me repeatedly with the same fabricated nonsense. He keeps giving those mocking statements against me for commissioning an report and is persistently stuck on the same matter over and over again. I want him to be punished for his vile actions, and for the offensive things he has said in his statements, which had a bad influence on people. He is going to everyone’s talk pages


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* {{AN3|b|31 hours}}. Let me or this board know if they IP-hop. - ] <small>(])</small> 14:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: bb 24 hours) ==
#
#
#
#


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|International Young Democrat Union}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mfs104}} and {{userlinks|92.225.129.161}}


<!-- 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 nature of this battle is too complex for individual difference links. I refer the reviewer to {{ph|International Young Democrat Union}}: the edit summaries alone indicate a failure of the two editors to try to reach ].


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ; .


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- 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 -->
I am not involved in this edit war, and have just observed it as a third party. No evidence either party has tried to resolve the issue through any type of discussion.


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


: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)
* {{AN3|b|24 hours}}. Both are clearly edit warring, thank you WikiDan61. Misplaced Pages is not the place for an external group to hash out their internal differences. - ] <small>(])</small> 15:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


:The OP account has been reported to AIV by ] with the suspicion that it's yet another sockpuppet account of User:Truthfindervert: ]. —&nbsp;] ] 11:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
: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 ) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Shawinigan Handshake}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|67.193.18.194}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|United States Board on Geographic Names}} <br />
;Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Wamalotpark}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617368020|20:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Here's the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/Aline_Chr%C3%A9tien Instead of deleting relevant, factual information how about helping out!"
# {{diff2|617402370|02:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Just add the friggin footnote. I don't know how. Never donating $ again to wikipedia."
# {{diff2|617471734|16:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Here's the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/Aline_Chr%C3%A9tien I do not know how to add it as a footnote in the article. Helping rather than undoing would seem to be benificial."
# {{diff2|617476027|17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "It's worth noting because an attempted assassination is going to affect your state of mind when a protester breaks your RCMP security detail. It's obvious a piece relevant to this situation."
# {{diff2|617478080|17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "The link is good enough for this Misplaced Pages article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Andr%C3%A9_Dallaire Deletionists are the bain of casual editors like me."


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# , using their IP, which is ]
# {{diff2|617477618|17:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
#
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|617478072|17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Proposed addition is synthesis */ new section"


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Also edit warring on ] ] <sup>]</sup> 17:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}}.--] (]) 19:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Both blocked) ==


*Wamalotpark is edit warring with multiple editors across multiple articles, and are making the same edits .-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
;Page: {{pagelinks|Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce}}
*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)
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Harmony944}}


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
;Previous version reverted to:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hindi–Urdu controversy}} <br />
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Augmented Seventh}}
# {{diff2|617477198|17:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Section break */"
# {{diff2|617481467|18:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "If we can't remove your list, you can't add a section break. Keep it all together"
# {{diff2|617482506|18:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Section break */"
# {{diff2|617486921|18:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Section break */"
# {{diff2|617487926|18:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617487780 by ] (]) You're more focused on minor stuff than providing an actual argument. Grow up"
# {{diff2|617488411|19:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617488125 by ] (]) "Refactoring improves nonfunctional attributes of the software" Stop edit warring"


'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271389468&oldid=1269162140
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617481789|18:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|617483296|18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on ]. (])"


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271341767&oldid=1269162140
# {{diff2|617488125|18:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617487926 by ] (]) stop refactoring my talk page contributions"
# 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


;<u>Comments:</u>


I added a section break to an extremely long thread on this article's talk page. Harmony944 has repeatedly removed this section break because he claims it disrupts the flow, despite my constant requests that he not modify my contributions to the talk page per ]. He has kept at this. —] (]) 19:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:First, it takes two to edit war. His section break was him putting half of a comment on top, then the section break, and then the second half. It was part of THE SAME DISCUSSION. Unless removing a section break and removing a redundant signature is a "drastic change", there is no base to these claims. It's a 21 character removal. That's MINISCULE--] (]) 19:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
::I attempted to start a new line of discussion with my edit, and there were two separate lines of discussion going on. One to Shadowbird and the other asking why it was such a big deal. And a section break is needed for these long and winding threads. You refactored my contributions to the talk page without my consent. That's not allowed.—] (]) 19:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:::No you didn't. It was the same discussion, don't kid yourself. It was the same line of discussion. The three of us were in the same discussion. It doesn't matter how long the discussion is, it has to be kept together unless you want to screw with people so they can't pick apart your argument bit by bit so it can look like you're "winning". You're not, and this report is a sham.--] (]) 19:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:::The section break was solely for the sake of Ryulong's complaining about the fact that Harmony944 and I were debating his call for a change. It did not serve a purpose except to separate the complaining from everything else, and I personally consider the section break unnecessary. It had nothing to do with actual discussion of the requested change; it merely existed for Ryulong's complaints. Deleting the section break would then be justifiable. I believe this report to be unwarranted.--] (]) 19:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
::::The page has expanded by 3 times since I began the discussion. A break is necessary to make it easier to keep contributing even though it's likely going to end soon. There is no reason to refactor mine or anyone's contributions to a talk page, particularly when you merged two comments made an hour apart in one of your edits. I meant for them to be separate. You have no right to merge them.—] (]) 19:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
::::And now Harmony944 is by pasting one of the warnings I gave him that has no basis when applied to me.—] (]) 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::''Excuse me?'' No basis? You disrupted the conversation when you put 2 successive warnings on my page because you didn't like what I was saying on the Megaforce talk page. You couldn't handle being wrong so you started threatening to get me blocked. That's why you're here, isn't it?--] (]) 19:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::I gave you the warnings because they were applicable to your modifications of my talk page contributions without my express consent, regardless if it's just a new section header. I told you that wasn't allowed when you cut out the lists twice.—] (]) 19:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to say, of all the ] things I have seen on Misplaced Pages, this has to be in the top 10. ] (]) 19:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:This edit war or the discussion that led to it?—] (]) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb|48 hours}}. The blocks are for edit warring. However, the moves discussion on the talk page is appalling.--] (]) 20:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271427280&oldid=1271423082
;Page: {{pagelinks|Aaron Craft}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Jcam6}}


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271428457&oldid=1271428288
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617537797|04:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=617536816|diff=617536869|label=Consecutive edits made from 03:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) to 03:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|617536847|03:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|617536869|03:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|617536701|03:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617536876|03:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"


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.
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
*{{AN3|nv}} ] (]) 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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

;<u>Comments:</u>
User was blocked as a vandalism-only account. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 04:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Oathkeeper}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Darkfrog24}}

Previous version reverted to:


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: , , and

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

Darkfrog by Nyttend less than three weeks ago for edit-warring ''within the same article''. Darkfrog24 refuses to discuss in talk without reverting in her preferred version of the article first. Every other editor, with the exception of DonQuixote, Donlago and myself, have left the article due to her tendentious nature. She keeps insisting that our consensus is wrong, that the RfC closure opinion was wrong and incomplete…the list goes on. It doesn't matter what any of us say, she just reverts her version in and tells us we are all wrong in article discussion. ''This has been going on for almost two months'', and it has to stop.<br>

The rest of us just want to stabilize the article and ensure that the content added can help it get to GA- and FA-status at some point. Traditionally, I'd be here requesting a block to protect the article. That said, Darkfrog has already stated on her talk page that the initial block by Nyttend wouldn't really have affected her, as per her claim that (). So, a block would have no effect on her behavior. She'd come off the block and continue edit-warring, as she has done here. I think a topic ban regarding any ''Game of Thrones'' series articles is called for at this point. Thoughts? - ] (]) 07:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|one week}} Due to the continued disruption, if you believe a topic ban is necessary you'll need to raise it on ] with evidence. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 08:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:Very well. I'll take a wait-and-see attitude after she returns to the Project. Maybe the break will add some perspective for her. Fingers are crossed. And thanks. - ] (]) 14:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected for 10<sup>48</sup> Planck times) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|Acupuncture}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Technophant}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617416455|05:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Restore removal by User:QuackGuru and added second paper from Journal_of_Pain with impact factor of 3.24, add NPOV tag"
# {{diff|oldid=617420457|diff=617424138|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC) to 07:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|617424045|07:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ add RS secondary "synthesis" statement from abstract"
## {{diff2|617424138|07:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ ce"
# {{diff2|617442899|11:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ QuackWatch doesn't meet MEDRS, or even RS, rm"
# {{diff2|617462528|15:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "clarify AMA's position"
# {{diff2|617549682|06:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617489583 by ] (]) restored with corrected url (copy/paste error)"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617553044|07:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|617552850|07:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Edit warring */ new section"

;<u>Comments:</u>

* Previous warning by another editor removed . Notice of discretionary sanctions . Discussion of edits . Discussion at ANI . ] (]) 08:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

* This editor looks an awful lot like ]. Exact same behavior, paranoia, topics, assumptions of bad faith, attacking other editors, etc.. -- ] (]) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:*If that's what you believe, {{U|BullRangifer}}, then add the editor to the SPI, along with diffs, of course, backing up your assertions.--] (]) 17:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

* User:Technophant restored the text again. See . ] (]) 18:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

* Could someone clarify what material the diffs above labeled #2 and #4 are reverts of? <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 19:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:: It looks like the original addition of substantially similar text in diff 2 was added by Technophant , then wholesale reverted before trying the text above. The text in link 4 appears to have originated , then been edit warred and . This is probably better treated as a case of tendentious EW than as a simple 3RR. Thank you for taking a look, ]. Note that I am ] here. Also note that the article is under ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 19:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:::], this doesn't look like a 3RR violation to me, because as 2over0 says, there's too much time lag. That, combined others' active reversion of Technophant's edits and with the active discussion at the talk page, makes me think that blocking anyone at this point will be counterproductive; I'm going to impose 86400 seconds of protection. ] (]) 22:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
::::Thanks ] for the analysis. I agree that it is tendentious...hopefully the user will take this as a warning. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 00:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The last time edit warring was reported here for the acupuncture article was a short time ago back in May. See ]. ] (]) 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Malaysia Airlines Flight 17}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|TheAirplaneGuy}}

<!-- 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. -->

User appears to have reverted 13 times in the past 24 hours.

<!-- 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 />

Just going out and don't have time to add all thirteen (!) diffs. Please talk nicely to this user and block if necessary. ] (]) 11:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

:I've reported you as well for personal attack. Wasn't edit warring as well, just taking out bad edits ] ] 11:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|one day}} and I've notified both of discretionary sanctions. The block as for the 3RR violation only no prejudice on the result of the ANI discussion. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Victoria Nuland}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Iselilja}}

<!-- 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> I have been trying to report on a matter of public interest regarding multiple versions of the famous leaked phone call between Nuland and Pyatt. A number of users seem to have little or no problem with this, or sought only reasonable tweaks. But a determined group of users including Iselejla, NazariyKaminski, and TheRedPenOfDoom have systematically and repeatedly deleted all reference to this information, using a variety of questionable appeals to WP editorial policies that have been explicitly addressed after each deletion. The most recent reversion took place in less than 60 seconds after I posted a newly-edited version of the information together with a friendly appeal in Talk that we should discuss any further edits and agree a joint version, in Talk, before further editing the main page. This had no effect, and produced no discussion or justification for the instant deletion. Since this is a matter bearing on the Ukrainian war, it is hard to remain confident in the "good faith" policy of[REDACTED] when posts about presumed spying activity ("tradecraft") are being reported. ] (]) 17:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}}. One revert? You're kidding, right? Perhaps you should listen to the other editors about the content, although I express no opinion on it.--] (]) 18:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|List of people who have run across Australia}}
;Users being reported:
:{{userlinks|Mark Heins}}
:{{userlinks|Markdabner}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:

The entire page history can be viewed

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
{{u|Mark Heins}}:
{{u|Markdabner}}:

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

;<u>Comments:</u>

Give me a minute, TW won't load the reverts, going to have to manually add them. ] ] ߷ ] 18:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
<br>
Got it built, this edit war has gone on since 10 July, I was going to request page protection, but neither user seems willing to communicate to build consensus on this article. This ] but this is the proper venue for this issue. ] ] ߷ ] 18:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}}.--] (]) 19:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|IjonTichyIjonTichy}}

<!-- 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:
#
# (article under 1RR)

<!-- 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 warning of 1RR restrictions and discretionary sanctions:
<blockquote>
("The article ] ... is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are:

All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under ''']''' (one ] per editor per article ''per 24 hour period''). When in doubt, assume it is related....

Editors who ... violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked '''without warning''' by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence....
")
</blockquote>
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: In a clear breach of 1RR, on a contentious article, IjonTichyIjonTichy deleted the same material twice. Within minutes. That is unacceptable.

He is also I believe incorrect (and for example equates attributed non-quote statements with "quotes"). But that is a secondary issue.

This is just the sort of problematic 1RR violation that makes the editing of articles in this area so difficult, and the reason they were subjected to 1RR in the first place.] (]) 22:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

<br />

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

:I was under the (possibly incorrect) impression my first edit did not constitute a revert, and thus I believed (possibly incorrectly) that my second edit was the one revert I was allowed.
:I have no intention to revert that material again within at least the next 24 hours, or 48 hours (and extremely likely much, much longer than that). This particular article does not interest me that much (although I am sad for the losses of all the families involved, on all sides of the conflict). Instead, I'd like to explain my view. Just because something appears in a reliable source, does not immediately imply that we are obligated to cite it in the encyclopedia. We (WP editors) are not automatic robots - we are supposed to, indeed we are required, to exercise judgment. (Otherwise we could all be replaced by artificial intelligence software that would edit WP harmoniously and peacefully without any editorial disagreements.) Please read very carefully the WP policies on ] and ]. So-called "off the record" statements attributed to "anonymous officials" should be treated, in my view, with extreme suspicion, to the point where they deserve zero ], regardless of the nationality, race, religion, ethnicity, race, socio-economic status, geographic location (or any other factor) of the "person" who is alleged to have made the statement. Thanks and regards, ] (]) 22:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

::You suggest here that you did not understand that your first deletion of the text added by another editor was a "revert".
::First, that's pretty basic. When an editor adds material, and you delete it (or hit "undo), of course that is a revert.
::Second, you are an experienced editor, with thousands of edits.
::Third, you seemed to understand perfectly well that a "first revert" is in fact a revert, when you brought to the AN/I noticeboard two years ago.
::Fourth, the 1RR tag clarifies, with an inline link, what "revert" means. ] (]) 22:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. I've formally alerted Ijon of the discretionary sanctions. I've also formally alerted ]. Indeed, given the number of reverts Catherine has made to the article today, it puzzles me, {{U|Epeefleche}}, why you are not reporting her. I'm not taking any other action at this point, but I'm leaving it open to another administrator to take action if they wish.--] (]) 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

::Bbb23 -- thanks. As to your question, the answer is that I had only today gotten as far as looking at the 1RR problem with Ijon. And one of his two reverts was a revert of material I added.
::But looking as you suggest at the further edits in the article, I see that those of the very active Catherine appear to be a complete mess -- whatever other problems they include, they also appear to include insertion of whole blocks of text that are uncited, which is problematic in an article of this nature. I support whatever action is deemed appropriate vis-a-vis Catherine (I'm off to grab a bite right now, so I won't have the time to parse here changes/additions, but hopefully my endorsement of your suggestion that her edits be scrutinized closely will move things in the right direction). ] (]) 23:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:::{{U|Epeefleche}}, who said you were allowed to eat? Although I have the authority to block someone without warning, I generally prefer not to, particularly, as in this case, I would have had to do so spontaneosly. Let's just hope now that she's been warned, her contributions will be more carefully monitored by those editors active on that and other related pages. Although I didn't fully analyze them, they appeared to be very disruptive above and beyond the number of reverts.--] (]) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
:*I should add, {{U|IjonTichyIjonTichy}}, a self-revert of your second revert would go some ways to showing good faith.--] (]) 23:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

::: Thank you ] for the friendly suggestion. I wish I would have thought of it myself. I appreciate your feedback here and on my talk page.

::: Dear ], the diff that you provided to my edit from two years ago was (a) made under entirely different circumstances and context and is entirely irrelevant to the particular circumstances and context under consideration here, and (b) made two years ago, and thus ancient history. In other words, you'll need to try harder to bring more recent evidence (much more recent than two years ago) that shows that I am prone to edit warring. Good luck with that, because such evidence does not exist.

::: Furthermore, ], your edit summary reverting my edit appears to accuse me of editing in order to push a POV, and now you appear to be accusing me of lying. In both cases, it appears you (a) may have failed to assume good faith, and (b) may have rushed to make some serious accusations based on flimsy (actually, non existent) evidence.

::: Additionally, you appear to be conveniently ignoring the view that statements attributed to "anonymous officials" speaking "off the record" are highly detrimental to the encyclopedia and make a complete mockery of WP. And especially when such statements are made in highly controversial articles. And especially when they are made in the lead section. And especially when these citations may also be in violation of the BLP of the persons who have been accused by some conveniently "unnamed" source to have committed very serious crimes.

Best regards, ] (]) 23:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

::::Ijon -- my point about your AN/I complaint had (I would have thought would be obvious) nothing to do with the substance of the AN/I. Your comments at the AN/I -- along with the other three points I make, above -- simply brings into question your assertion that you do not know what a revert is. Since it appears that as far back as two years ago, per that complaint, you understood quite well that a "first" revert is indeed a revert. ] (]) 05:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|not}}. Unless I'm missing a significant detail, IjonTichy has self-reverted and has made no further edits to the article in question. There's nothing stopping y'all from having a cordial discussion at the article's talk page. ] ] 14:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Talk:Yank Barry}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|AdmiralMeow}}

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|71.169.164.186}}



<!-- 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. -->
IP + SPA adding same ] violation to talk page 6x times. Note the subject of the article recently filed (and then dismissed) a lawsuit against 4[REDACTED] editors.

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:
IP
#
#
#
AdmiralMeow
#
#
#

<!-- 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: (Warning was for BLP vio)

<!-- 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: No discussion for BLP vio.
*{{AN3|b}} AdmiralMeow and his IP for one month. In the future, please post the required notice of this discussion to the talk pages of the reported accounts. I rarely block without that notice, but I made an exception in this case.--] (]) 00:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Article:''' {{pagelinks|Electronic harassment}} <br />
'''Editor:''' {{userlinks|Renee00124}}

<!-- 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: ]

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

Several editors have reverted this editor's changes to the article in question and all have warned him as required. I then realised I was reverting his ''fourth'' revert (five if you include the original disruptive edit). ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 11:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b| 48 hours}}. Four reverts, not including the original addition. Was warned prior to the last revert. ] ] 14:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::It should also be noted that per the discussion at WP:FTN, at least some of the material added by this contributor appears to have been copy-pasted from elsewhere. ] (]) 14:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Ezequiel Garay}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Fixed4u}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617737528|18:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617736620 by ] (]) My edit provides reliable information."
# {{diff2|617735437|18:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617731810 by ] (]) "BELIEVED to be in the region of 15 million euros" = GUESS"
# {{diff2|617730832|17:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617730534 by ] (]) S.L. Benfica announcement to ] > your unreliable source"
# {{diff|oldid=617727339|diff=617729495|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) to 17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|617727575|17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617727339 by ] (]) "The deal IS SAID to be worth ABOUT €15m (£12m).""
## {{diff2|617729495|17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Zenit */"
# {{diff2|617714791|15:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "independent.co.uk IS WRONG"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617737592|18:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Ezequiel Garay */"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

I warned the user not to change the edits, I then added further sources, I then warned him on his talk page; he repeatedly ignored and reverted the edits. ] (]) 18:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

False. I didn't ignore you and even explained you why your edits are wrong. ] (]) 18:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb}}. Both users violated ] (by quite a bit). I blocked RealDeal for 48 hours and Fixed for 31 hours. RealDeal had a very recent edit warring block.--] (]) 19:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|HesioneHushabye}}

<!-- 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>: That discussion over two years ago led nowhere, and the user reverted without consensus to his preferred version. The page remained the way it was until I reverted the page to its featured list status today. Any change should be rationally discussed, and from the discussion two years ago, combined with the tone of the reverts today, it doesn't seem as though the user has any interest in being rational. ] (]) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC) <br />
:{{U|Seattle}}, I don't want to read that 2012 discussion in detail, but when did Hesione restore their preferred version, and what about the intervening edits between 2012 and now (I'm assuming you went all the way back but I haven't verified that)? The only thing that ''is'' clear to me is that Hesione has an attitude (based on edit summaries).--] (]) 19:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Bbb23}} Over the span of , from that ] after a communal discussion. After the FL promotion, an ] formed a consensus to change the font size, which . In 2013, after from HesioneHushabye, another user the article to HesioneHushabye's version, again without consensus. The user updated their version through the next two years, while it remained stable as the unproven version. After updates, not much else changed in terms of format. ] (]) 20:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:::That advances me some, {{U|Seattle}}, but not all the way. Three more questions. First, I see the cause and effect of the encouragement diff, but I don't see how Heisone's comment on the other user's page provoked a change to a ''different'' article. Second, what about those "updates" after the change to the other version? Did you lose them when you restored the article? If so, did you evaluate them substantively? Third, why are you coming back to this so late in the game? I realize nothing compels you to monitor the article, but I'm still curious.--] (]) 20:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::::OK. See , which changed the Drama Desk Award format to the same format at the article, indicative of some connection between the two. The updates didn't affect the format that passed as a FL, but did add . I'm coming back because I want what's proper for Misplaced Pages, to uphold consensus and not the will of the individual. I asked another user to represent my interests a while ago, but I want to represent my own interests now. Of note is his response to HesioneHushabye: . ] (]) 20:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|36 hours}}. Thanks for your responses, {{U|Seattle}}. However, ultimately what tipped the scale for me was Hesione's last revert, which said that you deleted "last year's nominees". Yet, Hesione's version has fewer entries (through 2012) than the version he reverted. I also don't like the aggressive, attacking edit summaries. That said, @Seattle, if the recipient table is still missing the latest entry (2014?), it should be added. In addition, I noticed in passing that there is an "image" of Bancroft with a link that doesn't exist. All that said, you shouldn't be the one to implement these changes at this point, or you will have violated 3RR, regardless of Hesione's block.--] (]) 21:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Bbb23}} OK. I image earlier, but HesioneHushabye reverted that edit as well. I'll leave well enough alone for the period prescribed at ]. Best, ] (]) 21:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==
{{Archive top|result=The post-warning comments are not particularly constructive. We're done here, and, honestly, the reported user is fortunate to have only received a warning.--] (]) 00:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)}}

;Page: {{pagelinks|Public opinion on climate change}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|NewsAndEventsGuy}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617740493|18:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} "3RR exemption libel; ] and what's the status of Mann v Ball anyway?"
# {{diff2|617633602|22:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Science */ 3RR exception, stealth reference to libel claims in media now in federal court"
# {{diff2|617624949|20:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Science */ Subtly propogates statements now being litigated in federal court. We aren't a platform for libel."
# {{diff2|617619123|19:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617618369 by ] (]) "the debate" and "is over" are too vacuous to be relevant"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Got to the article via the BLP board, please note there are no names mentioned in the content being removed, so the claim of a BLP exemption is spurious ] (]) 20:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

*'''Response by NAEG'''
This is a report is specious because
(A) I deleted the material four times
(B) Edit summaries state a goodfaith claim for a 3RR exception (libel)
(C) Following the 4th deletion I made a to the talk page discussion and <del>explicitly stated that I would not remove the material again (diff)</del><small>Sorry, I'm pretty sure I typed that somewhere along the line, but now I can't find the diff, but in any case my subsequent actions are consistent with that statement</small>
(D) I also started a ]

OVERALL, blocks and the like are for PREVENTION and not PUNISHMENT. I stopped reverting and participated substantively in the talk thread, and due to the BLP problem intersecting with plausible deniability, also started a thread at BLPN per the part of BLP policy saying "''The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis.''"

QUESTION {{User|Darkness Shines}}, since the goal of admin action is prevention etc and since I am involved in two talk threads and am not reverting, just what is the purpose of this report? Prevention or...... something else?
] (]) 21:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

:The report is because you were edit warring, and broke 3RR. On an article which is covered by discretionary sanctions. ] (]) 21:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

:: (ec) This report clearly intends to harm a very productive editor and not much else. Darkness Shines opened this ''after'' NAEG opened the and even raised the issue , explicitely stating that ''"My deletion was reverted and I'm going to leave the material in the article while soliciting input, starting here at BLPN"''. The deletion he is referring to is what Darkness Shines calls , which means that NAEG only reverted '''3 times''', not 4, since that is not a revert but a removal of content. This is one of those issues that need to be swiftly dismissed with a warning issued to Darkness Shines to avoid opening false reports in the future. Regards. ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:::LMFAO, removing content is a revert. ] (]) 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::::No, that's editing WP. NAEG was not trying to restore the article to his prefered version, he made an original contribution to it by removing content he considered unsuitable. Regards. ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::Dear god in heaven, see ] "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Removing content is a revert. ] (]) 21:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::]: ''Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version.'' Removing content needs to restore the article to a previous version to be considered a revert. If it creates a new version of the article, it is simply a WP edit. Regards. ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 22:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{ec}} {{AN3|w}}. There is no doubt that {{U|NewsAndEventsGuy}} violated ]. The BLP exemption is misguided although ]. ] states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." It would have been more appropriate for NAEG to take the issue to BLPN no later than after the third revert, if not earlier. In addition, the article is under discretionary sanctions, and NAEG is aware of those sanctions, having been officially notified of them in January of this year. Despite all that, I am reluctant to sanction an editor who (1) says he will not revert again and (2) believes he was doing the right thing. But NAEG is '''warned''' that if this kind of conduct recurs, he should seek guidance before reverting and that a repeat violation of this type may lead to a block without notice.--] (]) 22:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

E/C

:::::::I concur only with the result, but respectfully think Bbb23 has not seriously weight the substance underlying this matter. For the record, I "officially notified" myself about DS. (Hmm, come to think of it, before I did that I earned a notice for restoring to a stable version in response to Darkness Shines' edits.)
::::::: I was trying to post the following at time of E/C and will now get back to real work
:::::::
:::::::Dear devil in hades, there was no edit war due to the 3RR exception, and even the non-edit war back-and-forth editing has been '''supplanted by discussion'''
:::::::: Blocking policy says, {{tq|"The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment." }}
:::::::: Having been asked whether the purpose of the complainant is prevention or something else, the complainant says, {{tq|"The report is because you were edit warring, and broke 3RR."}}
:::::::I'm not asking for any admin action, but in my opinion ] applies per "Do not disrupt[REDACTED] to make a point"
:::::::] (]) 22:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} You're confusing me using DS for discretionary sanctions when DS is also used to refer to Darkness Shines. :-) You were of the discretionary sanctions by {{U|Callanecc}}. I'm not going to address your other points. Let's move on.--] (]) 22:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::Wrong on both counts, B. ''Careful'' reading will show context that I also meant discretionary sanctions, and also corrected the record to say when I was first notified so you didn't really need to thump me there. ] (]) 23:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: I realize this was hatted, but for posterity I'd like to add diffs to my DS self-notices in case this file is reviewed for background in a future proceeding. They are
* but self reverted after ARB clarification motion discussion
*
] (]) 00:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


* '''Comment''' I looked at the content in question and it is not properly sourced and what i call a very questionable addition. As it is, i would have reverted it too i guess. ] (]) 23:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
::: With a closer look it appears as if Darkness Shines ] attempts to introduce doubt and denial into the article, since the poll created controversy, see ]. ] (]) 23:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: More detail, Darkness Shines used sources which are/were highly misleading, ], the poll came after the manufactured Climategate controversy and was very vague. ] (]) 00:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)



{{Archive bottom}}

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Myofascial meridians}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Technophant}}

<!-- 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: and

<!-- 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 is a new ] pushing a specific POV wrt acupuncture. Was just reported for edit warring here two days ago. Results in page protection and now editing warring on a new page. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

1. added comment, <s>not</s> a revert,

2. a restore of content removed without discussion

3. copy edit and removed commented material that was restored during edit was, not a revert

4. a restore of content removed without discussion

5. addition of new material, not a revert

If I'm trying to push a specific POV about acu then why did I leave the 2002 acu study off in the #3 revert? Doc James is either very careless or intentionally trying to mislead the noticeboard. - - ] (]) 03:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Case against ] for edit warring and unwarranted content removal:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Myofascial_meridians&diff=617789980&oldid=617789658
#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Myofascial_meridians&diff=617788419&oldid=617788077
#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Myofascial_meridians&diff=617700823&oldid=617695506
#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Myofascial_meridians&diff=617548300&oldid=617542779

I've asked for the page to be fully protected until the merge discussion is over on 25 July. - ] (]) 03:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
::Interesting the number 1 and 5 involved you adding the same material. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Corrected. So we both have 3 reverts in 24 hours. Best thing to do is protect the page at pre-war condition, with the Clinical section.- - ] (]) 03:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - There's apparently an ongoing content dispute on this article, and related acupuncture article, between Technophant, Doc James and a few other editors which Technophant brought to NPOV noticeboard ]. Looking over Technophant's edits, it's hard to tell if they are reverts, but glancing at the edit history for ] shows Doc James made 3 very clear reverts in past 24hrs, which is short of threshold, but seems to suggest mutual edit warring. Perhaps both editors should be warned. --] (]) 03:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
:*'''Result:''' Article protected one month. Edits of this article show a high level of boldness, and there is not much tendency to wait for consensus to be found on Talk. Protection is one way to ensure that discussion takes place. Use {{tl|edit protect}} requests to ask for changes that have consensus. ] (]) 04:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

::User:Technophant was recently involved in edit warring against consensus at acupuncture. See ]. Technophant claimed "A group of editors have repeatedly removed large sections without discussing on talk page first." But I did start a discussion on the talk page for the MEDRS violations. ] (]) 06:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah? ], ], ] please take a closer looks at the diffs of the user's reverts:

#July 20th, 7:12 Adds "] James L. Oschman states that "] are the" and the NPOV tag
#July 20th, 11:18 Adds "In a 2011 study ] James L. Oschman stated that "] are the" and "Several ] courses in Anatomy Trains"
#July 20th 16:13 Adds "] courses in Anatomy Trains"
#July 21st 02:45 Adds "In a 2011 study ] James L. Oschman stated that "] are the"
#July 21st, 03:01 Adds "In a 2011 study ] James L. Oschman stated that "]"

So basically within 20 hours this user added content and than attempted to re-add it four times. Technically 5 reverts. How is this not edit warring?

Additional issue is the refs used such as this recent translation of an early 1900s German alt med text that introduces a new ]. This is similar to using an early 1900s ] text to introduce a new ]. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Clay Mann}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Themann007}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617760354|21:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


;<u>Comments:</u>

user only created account to edit war ] (]) 07:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Avdo Humo}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|58.172.180.117}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617829995|11:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617554545|08:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

This IP Address has been editing dozen of articles without providing reliable source and most of the edits are unconfirmed informations. I would suggest a 1 week block in order to avoid much more damages. <font style="color: rgb(22, 159, 250); font-style: oblique; font-weight: bold; font-family: helvetica neue, sans-serif;">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 11:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|acupuncture<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Jmh649}}

<!-- 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:
#
#
# (rm link to free url for content that didn't exist, uncalled for)
# tendentious

<!-- 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:
(User has not edited talk page section.)

<u>Comments:</u> <br >
User is removing cleanup tags without proper justification or discussion, tendentious editing, and wikihounding.
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

I believe user is acting out of bias and anger and is not trying to improve WP. I'm trying to nip this one in the bud before it escalates. - - ] (]) 11:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
::Nice. Two difs. And look you have restored some so very close paraphrasing / copy and pasting in your last edits
::Currently you stand at three reverts.
::*
::*
::* which is fairly brave as this was the exact same content you tried to edit war about before the article was protected.
::The pmc was already linked in the ref in question if you notice the pmc= parameter. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
*Note at least 2 other sections just above (19-20 July) reporting Technophant for edit-warring in the context of ] violations, also involving ], who is a very respected medical editor. ] (]) 12:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
**Yup, looks like a ] is being made. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 12:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
***Was only involved with one of the reportings. A different user reported him the other time ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
:::User also of copy/paste when the edit clearly did not violate copvio due to it's simplicity. He also threatened my editing privileges. Clearly another attempt to hound me. - ] (]) 12:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{edit conflict}} Take a look at the facts here. The edits I made were constructive, appropriate, and completely unrelated to the previous incidents. Jmh649 actions were tendentious and motivated by personal reasons. - ] (]) 12:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
:I don't know if the admins here can address the hounding issue. If not I will have to take it up separately. - ] (]) 12:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
*I've decided to retract this complaint and take it to more appropriate forum. - ] (]) 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
::Very nice. As you only have 2 difs you have added one from another page and used one dif twice. Not that and are the exact same ONE edit. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Two reverts can constitute edit warring, esp. considering extenuating circumstances. - ] (]) 13:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
::::Yes technically but what are the extenuating circumstances. That you wanted to use a 1900s German text to support the introduction of a new ] that conventional science has missed? So you want to move this discussion here ? ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:14, 21 July 2014 (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