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 14:30, 4 June 2007 view sourceJustanother (talk | contribs)9,266 edits User:Smee reported by User:Justanother← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:52, 22 January 2025 view source Daniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators225,776 edits →User:Ergzay reported by User:CommunityNotesContributor (Result: 1RR imposed on article): another pertinent essayTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move|small=yes}}</noinclude>
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
<!--{{adminbacklog}}-->
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
<center>'''Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.<br/>Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.'''</center>
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive31--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
]
|maxarchivesize = 250K
==Violations==
|counter = 491
Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''.
|algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of religious slurs}}
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h Block)===


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
*] violation on
{{Article|Henry Ford}}. {{3RRV|Johnsome}}: Time reported: 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


* Previous version reverted to: '''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* 1st revert:
# {{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.)"
* 2nd revert:
# {{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.)"
* 3rd revert:
# {{diff2|1270039369|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
* 4th revert:
# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1270041824|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Although technically just outside the 24 hour period, The user has shown ZERO willingness to talk, there is NO reason to assume anythign will change unless the user is forced to. Further, please note , where he tried to violate me for 3RR. His edit has been reverted by two users, and his actions addressed by more. Thank you.] 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270040704|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
# {{diff2|1270045411|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:Edits are disruptive enough to warrant a block despite the 4 reverts lying within a 25h instead of a 24h period. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->


:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
===] reported by ] (Result: Pages protected)===
: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: 48 hours) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat}}. {{3RRV|Ned Scott}}: Time reported: 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <br />
* Previous version reverted to: N/A
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GiggaHigga127}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
User has reverted 3 admins closing the MfD. I also request a rereview of ] on this page. User has "recreated" a page deleted bu five different admins. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
# – same
# – same
# – same
# – same, now with PA


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:What are you up to, Cat? Do you see why some may find this whole username change obnoxious? You have changed many of your old signatures (albeit to have those changes reverted). You bring this up at ]. It went to ]. It came here, to ]. I rejected your previous 3RR piece here. And made a note of my rejection at ]. The MfD has been closed. And protected. Your old userpage has been deleted. And protected from recreation. And now it's back here, at ] (without you even bothering to modify the timestamps). What more do you want, Cat? Do you want a hand-written apology from Ned? Ned ] in the town square? You seem to have gotten most of what you asked for, save retribution. Shall I give you retribution? No, '']''; you will have to suffice with just your victory. As the previous reviewer, I perhaps should ignore this request and let another admin handle it. But I cannot in my good conscience let you waste yet another admin's time with this ordeal. Your username has been changed, your old userpage deleted. ]; time to move on. -- ''']''' 23:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::Ned Scott has waisted everyones time. I question your objectivity in reviewing the past and this 3rr case since you clearly are an involved party. Ned Scott continued to disrupt due to your last review.
::In order for me to be victorious there should be a war. I am not engaged in millitary warfare.
::--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h Block)===


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|Goebbels children}}. {{3RRV|Zeraeph}}: Time reported: 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


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


As far as middleweight goes, Benn has ''never competed anywhere close to that weight class''. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, ] and ] should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had ] regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. ] would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. ] (]) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
* 1st revert:
:It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. ] (]) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert: ::Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* 4th revert: :::Based on , it could be ] as well. ] (]) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --] (]) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Of course you stand by the revision. You show up less than 12 hours after Gigga gets blocked, and perform the exact same revert. Dodgy. ] (]) 19:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
User is continually removing a cited paragraph, or just the citation.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tübingen School}}
:As he/she removes the citation in each edit, he/she indeed has conducted more than 3 reverts. Considering that he/she has accused another user of "writing ficton" and has an extensive block log for personal attacks and another 3RR vio, I have issued a 24h block to as I see the chance of things getting out of hand. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xpander1}}
===] reported by ] (Result: Warning)===


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|Evolution}}. {{3RRV|Sir james paul}}: Time reported: 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1270585353|07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Self-reverting as per ]"
# {{diff2|1270579742|06:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270517034 by ] (]): Please see the redirect page for adding new edits"
# {{diff2|1270517034|22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270516481 by ] (]): Please avoid making an edit war, I asked you nicely"
# {{diff2|1270516481|22:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1270515748|22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270489731 by ] (]): Please add the new sources to ] Best."
# {{diff|oldid=1270482917|diff=1270489731|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1270484281|19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) other editors simply continued my original work, which I respect"
## {{diff2|1270489731|19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Redirecting page the newly created page"
# {{diff2|1270482597|19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Reverting my own edit to contest page creation attribution"
# {{diff2|1270267829|19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
# {{diff2|1270589185|07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert: (personal attack in edit summary)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*User has been in the past for of similarly contentious edits on ], and is forcing the issue again. Might not technically be within 24 hours, but he's gaming the system to try to force his edits. This can't be acceptable behavior. ] 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270588908|07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply"
:No violation of the three-revert rule, but given the incivility and past history with this article, editor has been warned regarding behavior. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270341854|02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests}} "/* Uncontroversial technical requests */ Decline, this one is more of a histmerge request which would also be declined from ] - I'm happy to explain further on a talk page"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h Block) ===
*] violation on
{{Article|Britain and Ireland}}. Time reported: 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


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


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


The Teahouse discussion can be found (for now) at ]. Please see also ] and ]. ] (]) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
She has since revetred 3 times more and knows what she is doing , ] 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|72 hours}} , I am mystified—no, make it ''stunned''—that Xpander thinks this edit-warring is justified. In what sense are they not being attributed as the page creator sufficiently for their ego? Do they mean that the ''page creation log'' isn't saying that they are? Uh, that's something the ''software'' does, that by design no one has control over. {{u|Wetman}} is going to get credit for creating the ''page'', yes, as the empty redirect it was apparently quite happy to have been for 15 years. As noted, no editor familiar with how our processes work would doubt that Xpander, in practical terms, created the ''article'' by translating the dewiki article, regardless of what the logs say.<p>Xpander's repeated reversion to the redirect is, frankly, childish behavior that smacks of ]. I strongly remind them ].<p>I also reject their argument that ] shields them as they were merely always "reverting their own edit". Technically that might be arguable, but it is ''inarguable'' that, especially given their statement that ], they did so in a manner calculated to cause ] and interfere with the work of others. To allow this to pass on that basis would be opening up a whole new way to ]. ] (]) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Addendum''': I also commend ] to {{u|Xpander1}}'s attention. ] (]) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 hours) ==
*''Comment'', I reverted it once by mistake. ] corrected my mistake. Thanks ] 01:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Oriel High School}}
:Can you give a diff for the mistake please? As then I can replace it with one of the 3 other urls, ] 01:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::Hi ], this should be the one. ] 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|92.238.20.255}}
:::It wasnt included in the report, ] 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::::Please provide diffs to all four reverts, above you only provided three diffs. Yet, I was able to see from the page history that ] has egaged in an edit war that warrants administrative action. I have issued a 24h block to calm things down. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 02:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: Adam1090 commended)===
# {{diff2|1270686162|19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
# {{diff2|1270685824|19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
# {{diff2|1270685483|19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
# {{diff2|1270684934|19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
# {{diff2|1270683674|19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"


*] violation on
{{Article|WWE Championship}}. {{3RRV|Adam1090}}: Time reported: 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


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


<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


<u>'''Comments''': This IP is trying to censor information in that article --] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</u>
Copyright issues are not subject to the ], editor was replacing a fair-use image with a free one. However, I will look carefully to see if any of those putting the fair-use image back in, in violation of our ], need to be blocked. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ] (]) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I undid that block and restored it because simply removing the block isn't really an option in response to actually disruptive editing, but the IP editor's behavior wasn't the main issue in this edit war. I'll send warnings around to people who should know better. ] (]) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' ] <br />
*] violation on
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kelvintjy}}
{{Article|Large Group Awareness Training}}. {{3RRV|Smee}} and {{3RRV|Smeelgova}} : Time reported: 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


* 1st revert: '''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* '''7th revert: ''' ADDED - after initial report.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
This editor has a contentious edit history and already been blocked for 3RR violations 5 times by this board:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
as {{3RRV|Smeelgova}} and {{3RRV|Smee}}
# 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


The user is edit warring with multiple editors.


] 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
;Not 3RR violation
This user seems to habitually want to get me blocked, and it is inappropriate. A simple review of the DIFFs and a perusal of the article's history itself will see that I have provided context for the citation, and in addition to that I will not revert this information again. I have changed the nature in which the citation is given. These are in fact ''not'' "6" reverts, but if anything 3, which I apologize for, but sourced citations were being removed from the article. In any event, as the context has been given for the citation appropriately, there will be no more reverts for that. Whether or not ] will continue to edit war on that article is irrelevant, for I will not be a party to it. ] 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
*] does not seem to understand, I changed his original research tag which was laid over the whole entire article, instead to the one word that he had a problem with "psychological", and by the way, this was not a revert. However, if someone thinks that my changing of his tagging as OR the entire article, to the only word that he has an issue with "psychological" was some kind of revert, I will be more than happy to self-revert that. I will continue to ''not'' revert this user anymore on this article, as I have stated above. ] 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
**, As stated above, I do not wish to revert this user on this article at all, and will not in the future. Evidently he feels that my changing his tagging of the entire article as OR, to the one word that he ''thinks'' is OR, was a revert, so I have Self-Reverted here, and will not revert this user. ] 04:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC).


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
::I agree that this is not a ] edit war situation, This diff shows ] is not the only editor who believes the source is valid.


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
:: ] rationale doesn't make sense: ''(The idea that we would list where a term is referenced in other books and articles is unencyclopedic, adds nothing, and I will stop just short of saying it is silly.)'' To the contrary mentioning the use of LGAT in textbooks discussing the issue is quite encyclopedic and adds relevance to the term/article.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
:: ] doesn't explain how the reference doesn't match either in his edit summary or on the talk page.


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


I don't understand the user always keep targeting me. I am more of a silence contributor. I had seen how the complainant had argue with other contributor in other talk page and after a while the complainant stay silent and not touching certain topic and instead keep making edit on articles related to ] or ]. Now, he is making a lot of edit on ]. ] (]) 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:: ] appears to have forgotten that the article is about LGATs in general, since he earlier appeared to feel that singling out Landmark in the article was unfair given all the LGATs out there. ]


== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
::At best this is a misunderstanding of the ] rule by ], at worst a pattern of ] which could be forming here. ] 04:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}
====Page protected====
Since both of you have been having disputes over the page since quite a long time, the only appropriate course of action would be to protect the page while the parties can discuss and resolve dispute on the talk page of the article. The article protection duration is of 48 hours. &mdash; ] ] 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:This is ''not'' the same article as previous reports. This is a problem with the editor, not the article. Smee followed me to ] as well and is picking at my edits (check the edit logs there). I agree with Anynobody, I'm not sure I understand 3RR at all, when 7RR isn't a violation. I'm not warring, I'm only 2RR there.] 05:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
;Pattern of abuse by {{userlinks|Smee}} (formerly {{userlinks|Smeelgova}}.
This is about a long-term pattern of ], ], and ] of articles. Smee merrily went 3 reverts with me over my thought-out edit that contributed to the article and then merrily continued edit-warring with one, perhaps two, other editors. This is not about the article; this is about one editor that refuses to "get it" despite multiple blocks. When Smee is invested in an article, no-one with an "opposing" POV to her "cult-fighter" persona (or a neutral POV for that matter, or often even a more reasonable editor with views closer to hers, like ] or ]) is allowed to edit there. This has to be addressed. Please, Mr. Admins, do your job. Page protection will handle nothing. This is about a pattern by one POV-pushing editor, ]. --] 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ergzay}}
==== ] (formerly ]) at work; ]; ] ====


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*New user makes a nice in an unsourced section.
*] (formerly ]) reverts with edit summary and then the newbie with a vandalism warning. --] 12:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
**The User has just received a more friendly welcome message from myself. The edit was indeed non-vandalism.
**But. The larger concern here is that mutually reinforcing vendettas and contribution stalking may be developing between Smee and other editors, which has more damage potential than a fourth revert. Should this be taken to another forum? User conduct RfCs are procedurally dreadful, but some mediation appears needed. I would say that the "not an entitlement" aspect of 3RR seems to be lost on Smee. ] 12:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
* There seems to be more evidence of retaliatory behavior against ] on ]. - ] 12:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
**Yes, Smee has been edit warring with ] on several articles and this latest report to ] smacks strongly of retaliation to me. ] 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
***Smee has been ] me since I arrived. But my complaints have been pushed aside in Good-Faith assumptions about this edit warrier. ] 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I have posted a timeline of the 3RR pattern for anyone who wants the tedious task of observing time stamps and dates and ''seeing'' the pattern. Smee wasn't 4RR. Smee was '''7RR''' and I was '''2RR'''. The only 3RR block that I've ever had, came over 24 hours AFTER I had Stopped editing in an article (clearly punitive). Yet Smee has been blocked 5 times and still continually avoids preventative 3RR blocks. I'm beginning to wonder what the 3RR rule is for. ] 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:::::I have ended the discussion on WP:COIN. This is troubling editing behaviour. ] 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270885082|18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Reverting for user specifying basically ] as their reasoning"
# {{diff2|1270881666|18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) I believe you have reverted this edit in error so I am adding it back. Rando tweet from a random organization? The Anti-defamation league is cited elsewhere in this article and this tweet was in the article previously. I simply copy pasted it from a previous edit. ADL is a trusted source in the perennial source list ]"
# {{diff2|1270878417|17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Removing misinformation"
# {{diff2|1270875037|17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
# {{diff2|1270724963|23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Revert, this is not the purpose of the short description"
# {{diff2|1270718517|22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Elon is not a multinational"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: Page protected)===
# {{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:'''
*] violation on
# {{diff2|1270885380|18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" {{small|(edit: added diff, fix date)}}
{{Article|Lolita (disambiguation)}}. {{3RRV|Jbolden1517}}: Time reported: 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


* Previous version reverted to:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
* Diff of 3RR warning:


] 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)
*Between the first and second reverts, two interim edits were also made by the reported user (, ). The second, third, and fourth reverts added these edits back in addition to reverting to the previous version from 25 May.
* Between the third and the fourth reverts, the page was moved to a non-standard parenthetical clarifier with an edit summary that I would characterize as ].


:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
You'll notice #4 is on a new page and #1 and #2 don't match (aren't the same version of the article (see all the fashion material) ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 03:22, 30 May 2007 (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)
:::]: {{tq|An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. ] (]) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. ] (]) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::]: {{tq|There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons}}. – ] (]) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. ] (]) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. ] (]) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
:The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. ] (]) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. ] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording followed by after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. ] (]) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::What is a CTOP? ] (]) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::A CTOP is a ]. ] (]) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages.}} If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. ] (]) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. ] (]) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
: 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)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected one week; IP range blocked two weeks) ==
:A reversion is a reversion, whether it's in whole or in part. And moving a page to a silly title does not make it a different page.--] ]/] 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul Cézanne}}
:: Adding a bunch of new content is not a reversion. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}}
::: Its borderline so I self reverted as much as I can. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Page was protected by ]. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
# {{diff|oldid=1271008210|diff=1271008905|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1271008695|06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|1271008905|06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1271007344|06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1271006989|06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
#


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*] violation on
# {{diff2|1271008376|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
{{Article|Animal testing}}. {{3RRV|Migospia}}: Time reported: 05:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1271010383|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."


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


<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* User not new, but 3RR warnings were made on edit summaries: ]<font color="black">e</font>] 05:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
*This is straight-up vandalism. {{U|BusterD}} semi-protected the article for one week, and I've blocked ] for two weeks.--] (]) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

24 hours. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Two-Face}}. {{3RRV|Cole435}}: Time reported: 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* 6th revert:

User refuses to use talk, relies upon OR determinations of popularity, and in his last conflict, offered to 'bust a cap' in the next person who argued with him. I didn't give a 3RR warning, but he's not a newer user, and his stubborn insistence along the ] line makes him unlikely to change. As such, a block's definitely needed. I got so frustrated, I vio'd 3RR myself, but immediately self-reverted. However, he needs to stop. ] 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a 5th revert, just outside of the 24 hour mark, and without him signing in. However, signature phrases in his argument' very camp', arguments to recentism, and genreal comments regaring Two-face being a serious character indicate it's the same editor, tryign to ] 3RR. I can go through a checkuser if needed, please let me know at my talk. ] 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a 6th revert in this slow boil. He's been reverted and on contact with another editor, ], and hasn't listened to that editor either. Please put a halt to this. He violated 3RR, and got nothing, and continues to revert war despite opposition. ] 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

*And yet no one warned him? I am personally unwilling to block editors if I think they may not be aware of the rule, so I've just left a warning. If another admin is willing to block, OK. ] ] 06:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:Warnings are NOT required for non-new users, for one, and for two, given his lack of intent to use talk pages, nor respond to interactions from others, I doubt it's effectiveness anyway. ] 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ]] (Result:no vio)===

*] violation on
{{Article|:Category:Aspergian Wikipedians}}. {{3RRV|Myanw}}: Time reported: 12:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

Not three, but eight seperate reverts in one 24 hour period. Wheel-warrior extraordinare.
*These reverts were of vandalism. Anon making this report was adding a disparaging message about Asperger syndrome. ] ] 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Timothy F. Ball}}. {{3RRV|74.116.118.230}}: Time reported: 13:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to: (Removal of longstanding external link to ])

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning:

'''Comment:''' IP user may not actually have seen warning, but also ignores request for discussion on talk via edit summary. Semiprotection might be an option.
*User clearly edit warred; no reason to block out other anons. Blocked for 31 hours. ] ] 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus}}. {{3RRV|80.250.128.5}}: Time reported: 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:
* Warning to user :
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

:3RR vio - issued 24h block. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

===] reported by ] (Result: 31h Block)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Elazar Shach}}. {{3RRV|67.81.154.219}}: Time reported: 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert: (This also involved his leaving of a personal attack in the edit summary)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


* Diff of 3RR warning: (They are the same person, see comments below.

This user is removing the sourced paragraph of
<blockquote>
Chabad representatives dismissed the comparisons, noting that whereas the Sabbateans deliberately violated religious laws on the assumption that a "new Torah" would emerge during messianic times, Chabad preached that only strict adherence to tradition would bring the redemption. Chabad also claimed that its veneration of the rebbe was not at odds with Jewish tradition.<ref> ('']'') ], ].</ref>
</blockquote>
and adding unsourced and pov content.

I believe that this ip is ] is the ip based on his blanking of the ip's warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:67.81.154.219&diff=prev&oldid=118545159 and the ip blanking of his sockpuppeteer tag http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:DavidCharlesII&diff=prev&oldid=116798822 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:DavidCharlesII&diff=prev&oldid=116783319 which was his first edit. ] 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

*It should be noted that the reverts are also removing unsourced, anecdotal, probably false, defamatory content regarding R' Shach and the Lubavitch yeshiva, which is not subject to 3RR from what I recall. -- ] 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::However the paragraph quoted above is sourced and not defamatory and should not have been removed. ] 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

::Violation of 3RR and personal comments in edit summary - issued 31h block. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 22:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Lee Harvey Oswald}}. {{3RRV|70.109.54.8}}: Time reported: 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

* Diff of 3RR warning: by ]

Soon after this report was submitted, was made by ], who is likely the same individual as ] based on past edits and talk comments. ] <small>(])</small> 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:Pretty clear case of 3RR vio. I have issued a 24h block. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:72h Block)===

User Dacy69 is on revert parole:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dacy69#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration.2FArmenia-Azerbaijan_2

He has only one revert per article per week, yet on the Heroes of Azerbaijan article, he revert three times within a two day period.

{{Article|Heroes of Azerbaijan}}. {{3RRV|Dacy69}}: Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
As you can see, on May 28 he reverted once to reinsert ''Babak'' into the article, then on May 30, he again reinsert the person back into the article twice (two other reverts). He has also just personally attacked me, implying that I dont even have a medium intelligence level: .] 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not make revert - I added information with NEW supplementary references and made minor fixes. And I did not insult - what you implied it is up to you. Diffs can be checked. And speaking frankly you going after me and reporting is close to Wiki harassment. --] 22:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:Thats still a revert. You've been on Misplaced Pages for a long time, you know the rules. Dacy69 knows the rules, do not let him mislead you. You reverted all three times, it doesnt matter if you added anything, it still a revert. You cant hide reverts by adding information on top of the revert. The historical section was removed three times, along with Babak, and you re-inserted it three times...Thats called a revert. You clearly violated your parole, just admit it.] 22:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::It was not - if text is removed and I am coming to reintroduce it with '''new references''' and new text - it is not revert. That is clear. This is my first series of editing (3) and second (4). and compare now initial and final text. In between ] came leaving quite insulting comment against the country --] 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

::Misplaced Pages rules clearly state: ''A revert, in this context, means undoing, <u>in whole or '''in part'''</u>, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.''. You cant make excuses for clearly violating your parole.] 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Three reverts in two days do not constitute a violation of the 3RR. Yet, there seems to be a rather slow edit war in progress on this article. I have not issued a block but '''advise both parties to use the talk page''' instead of edit warring-even if it is at a crawling pace. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a regular 3rr report, its a parole violation report. Please read the case carefully. And I'm not edit warring in that artile, in fact, I havent made a single revert yet on that article.] 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:I see. Sorry for the mistake. I have issued a 72h block for parole vio. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 23:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Lee Harvey Oswald}}. {{3RRV|67.142.130.43}}: Time reported: 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:

] is almost certainly a block-evading sockpuppet of ], who was blocked today for reverting the same edits in the same article.

This user has now started reverting as ].

: ] - 24 hrs. ] <small>]</small> 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
: ] 48 hrs for block avoidance and 3RR ] <small>]</small> 20:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|State terrorism by the United States}}. {{3RRV|Giovanni33}}:

While just a bit over 24 hours and only consisting of three precise reverts...3RR is not an entitlement...
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

* Discussion regarding his edit warring on the same article was most recently on May 26, 2007 based on repeated efforts to force his POV into the article over concensus , , --] 20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:I object to this report because it singles me out when Mongo himself has reverted three times, as well, for his POV in this edit conflict with me and several other editors. Indeed many of us have (which I agree is not a good thing) however, if you look at the talk page, I have been the most active trying for forge a consensus and stop the edit conflicts, asking people to please talk about it instead of just reverting blindly. For Mongo to revert 3 times himself yet try to get me blocked for doing the same thing seems to me to amount to trying to gain an advantage in the edit conflict. That is not what this place is for. I have not violated the 3RR as he admits, and if I should not have reverted 3 times, he should not have either, nor the many other editors in this latest edit conflict. I should not be singled out, esp. since I did not violate the 3RR rule.
Mongo's 4 reverts, just over 24 hours based on repeated efforts to force his POV into the article over concensus (actually consensus is split):
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
] 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:: Page protected for one week. ] <small>]</small> 21:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:::That is probably best. I don't like "trying" to get someone blocked for 3RR, but while I stopped my very short lived edit war, which was also with an IP trying to add the same stuff Giovanni was, Giovanni has persisted and he was at 3RR on the same article just a few days ago.--] 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Holiday Magic}}. {{3RRV|Smee}}: Time reported: ] 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
formerly {{3RRV|Smeelgova}}

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

Smee is also 3RR at {{Article|Children of God}} against another editor.

* 1st revert: <- Newbie BITING.
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:

We're Back!

Earlier today '''7RR''' didn't earn a block. So ] has decided that he can revert war in Holiday Magic and Children of God now too.

This contentious editor has a LONG HISTORY of edit warring, and seems to love to revert everything I do.

He has been blocked by this board '''5 times'' already as {{3RRV|Smeelgova}} and {{3RRV|Smee}}.

He's now at 3RR in TWO articles.. which IS a violation, since Smee keeps pushing the limit.

The last time, the admistrator assured me that Smee would 'take the warning'.. but that clearly has not happened.

'''note to admin: ''' PLEASE scroll up and read the '''7RR''' report above, including the previous 3RR timeline:

The last block was for 48 hours.

It doesn't matter what article I edit, Smee is going to revert everything I do until I hit 2RR and have to stop.

] 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:Blocked for three days, less for his most recent reverts and more for a troubling pattern of repeated reverting in general. See Smee's ] for further explanation. ] 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


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

*] violation on
{{Article|Vicente Fox}}. {{3RRV|97.99.137.82}}: Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning:

:Quite obvious case of a 3RR vio. 24h block to stop edit war. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 00:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Glenn Greenwald}}. {{3RRV|Raphaelaarchon}}: Time reported: 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

* Diff of 3RR warning: . 5 Reverts made under the anon IP {{userlinks| 71.100.1.7}}as indicated by . Also request page semi-protection as this user has edited under at least one other anon IP address. ] 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the reverts. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Liancourt_Rocks}}. {{3RRV|melonbarmonster}}: Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

The article has gone through significant change since this revision due to the recent name change, but the reverts he's pushing were present in that revision, as well as more recent revisions (that was an easy recent one to find since he had made one of the reverts in that revision as well). The changes might seem small, but are especially controversial (especially revert 3 and 4).

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: removed '''by an English speaker'''
* 2nd revert: removed '''by an English speaker'''
* 3rd revert: added back '''administered'''
* 4th revert: removed '''and administered''' (to the other side)

* 3RR warning: Been blocked for 3RR, incivility, and personal attacks multiple times, 3RR specifically for three times since 1 March. Last time was a week long block for repeated 3RR violations starting on May 15. Since coming off this block, he is evidently still intent on edit warring, blowing right past the 3RR limits as well as continuing the personal attacks (eg ).

Third "revert" isn't, I can't find the text "and administered" in any earlier version. That would indicate this is a new edit, not a revert. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
: Sorry, here's the he was undoing. Per consensus we had discussed that "administered" was too strong a word on one side awhile back so we replaced it, but he undid this diff effectively by reinserting the word administered. --Cheers, ] 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Glenn Greenwald}}. {{3RRV|71.100.1.7}}: Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Sandy Koufax}}. {{3RRV|Epeefleche}}: Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3nd revert:

No violation. Incorrect format anyway. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:<s>warned</s> 24h)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Template:Infobox Country}}. {{3RRV|Lear 21}}: Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
**No technical vio, as the user skirts four in 24 hours each time. I have advised Lear that the 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts every 24 hours. Update if the edit war continues, as a block will then be needed.
***Your warning at 13:16, 31 May 2007 had no affect.
* 6th revert:
**<sigh>. 24 hours. ] ] 05:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Right to bear arms}}. {{3RRV|SaltyBoatr}}: Time reported: 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning:

*Also continues to revert after this, creating new 3RR violations, although not in the same 24 hour period as above.] 21:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
**Blocked for 24 hours. ] ] 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

<!-- copy from _below_ this line -->

===] reported by ] (Result: No block / article protected)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Template:Philadelphia Eagles staff}}. {{3RRV|Bjewiki}}: Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

:While I realize I am in violation of the 3RRV rule, I would like it noted that because they disagreed with my legitimate edit ] (who has several previous 3RRV violations), and ] teamed up to revert my legitimate edit 2 & 3 times each, for a total of 5 times. While I realize that is not a technical violation of the 3RRV rule, it certainly violates the spirit. ] 22:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

::Maybe in your own little fantasy world. My past violations are irrelevant here considering I didn't commit and infraction here. Further, Pats1 and I have had no discussions about this subject on Misplaced Pages or off it so if we both are making the same change we feel is the right one, then it doesn't matter. Neither of us have violated 3RR in this case, and you have. It doesn't matter what kind of spirit it was in. Sorry.] 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

:No block. All of you where edit warring. Don't do it or you all will be blocked for disruption. ] <small>]</small> 00:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's an illogical conclusion. I thought you guys had rules for a reason, but I guess not.] 00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
: Edit wars accomplish nothing. Revert once if you must, to show your disagreement, and then engage in discussions to resolve the dispute. If you cannot resolve it, pursue ]. ] <small>]</small> 00:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

: "you guys" includes you. This is Misplaced Pages and the policies are made by the community. Read ] to understand the nuances. ] <small>]</small> 00:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
::For now, I think it would be best to fully protect the template. Hopefully, that will get you guys to go to talk page and DISCUSS. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">] (])</span></font> 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Veganism}}. {{3RRV|Kellen`}}: Time reported: 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

(See report below) same article, same user.

: Same responses to Abe. His changes were previously rejected by editors of the article. Migospia's changes were akin to vandalism, being undiscussed, and improperly marked as minor. Other changes were by anon/new editor who also did a large amount of blanking. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:: This is absurd. We have a 3RR violation, and a chronic ] edit warring user. Admins do.... Nothing. ] 03:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No violation - Article semi-protected for 1 week)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Veganism}}. {{3RRV|Kellen`}}: Time reported: 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: rv anon IP
* 2nd revert: rv anon IP
* 3rd revert: rv new user ]
* 4th revert: rv edit by ]
* 5th revert: rv edits by ]


::If I can make a comment, Kellen was reverting the blanking of large swaths of the article, and should not be blocked for his actions. Consensus on the talk page has been to include this material. I would have reverted it had I seen it before him. The article for ] attracts periodic bursts of ], and this is yet another instance of it. Cheers, ] 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

:::'''Comment''': I'm not an admin: It looks like the first three reverts were pseudo-justified due to anon-ip and new user account. The last 2 reverts, however, were against more established editors. This is not entirely an article vandalism-protection issue. (I replaced the diff's for easier verification). ] 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::::'''Comment''': The 4th was marked as minor, yet removed a huge swathe of sourced content. Possible cause to consdier it vandalism per ] and hence ] excempt? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:::: Migospia blanked a large section of the article without cause or discussion. Abe followed up, also by blanking a large section of the article. As skinwalker points out, consensus has been to include this material. I believe Migospia thinks I'm involved in her block yesterday for edits to ], which I am not, although I did seek to encourage her to learn from the block rather than accuse a conspiracy and make personal attacks. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey I blanked harmful edits to an aritcle, back to the previous state so don't do this!--] 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey hey you guys can't all of a sudden make excuses to bend the rules saying they are pseudo-justified it does not matter who she reverted, non were vandalism so therefore violated the 3RR--] 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
:], I apologize for not making my initial post clear that I'm not an admin. Your reaction is understandable, but unnecessary. And, significant edits which repeatedly remove significant amounts of material by an anon IP, followed by the same edit from a new user, could easily be viewed as vandalism. The admin will be able to check the IP and be able to see what was going on. ] 00:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a violation here. The first three reverts really do appear to be reverts of vandalism or test edits, large-scale blankings with no explanation in the edit summary, and made by an anon or very new account. I think most editors would have interpreted those as vandalism or tests. The last two were clearly content reverts, since a rationale for the blankings was provided in the edit summary, but that doesn't violate the 3RR. I would encourage the parties here to pursue ] if necessary rather than edit warring. (And whoever's logging out to make those edits-that's a really, really bad idea. 3RR applies per -person-, not three logged in, log out, and make three more.){{unsigned|Seraphimblade}}
Hypercite so when I did legit edits and reverts I get blocked 24hours plus, but when Kellen makes harmful edits and keeps reverting all of a sudden its no violation! It should state that[REDACTED] considers admins higher priority than other users as well as the admins can get away with pretty much anything and if you are friends with an admin the same goes--] 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Rockpocket's reasoning seems accurate here. Several of the reverted edits removed large portions of contents from the article, paragraphs that seemed well sourced and had been stable prior to that episode. To prevent anonymous blanking, I'm also semi-protecting this article for a period of time sufficient to discourage this behavior. I also urge both Migospia (''specially'' Migospia) and Kellen to engage in discussion before proceeding with this edit dispute. ] - 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They were not well sourced which is my point, and I tried before and after my edits with Kellen but I just cannot seem to get through--] 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
:], let me say this VERY GENTLY. Two admins have ruled. Pushing the issue won't change that, but could prompt a deeper investigation to see what might be going on related to the anon IP edits. At the moment everyone is ]. I recommend that you AGF as well and let this go. ] 01:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john- PLEASE STOP commenting on mine, they ruled this way because of you --] 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
: The paragraphs you removed were incredibly well cited. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No like in the vegan talk they aren't--] 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is getting way out of line. This is not the appropriate place to contest our decision. Further comments will be removed. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so at my talk page or yours, Migospia. Thank you. ] - 01:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

: This is absurd. We have a 3RR violation, and a chronic ] edit warring user. Admins do.... Nothing. ] 03:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take this up with the deciding admin. This is not the place to continue this discussion. Thank you. ] ] 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Nanking Massacre}}. {{3RRV|203.70.54.205}}: Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

* 3RR warning:
**24 hours. ] ] 06:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


===] a.k.a. ] reported by ] (Result: Warning)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Hulk (comics)}}. {{3RRV|Mikesmash}}: Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

User keeps reinserting "Gravage Hulk" section.

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

On his talk page, ] acknowledges that he is also ]. He says we was unaware of any rules he might violate by making 5 edits, and yet it seems very odd that only after the 3rd revert (and ''right'' after) did he then log in as Mikesmash. (A warning is probably more appropriate than a block. Despite the convenient timing of when he logged in, we can't read minds.)

:The discussion on the talk page of {{user|Mikesmash}} gives the impression that he was not aware of the three-revert rule until someone brought it up after his fifth revert. If he proceeds to revert-war now, he will be subject to a block. -- ''']''' 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 4 days)===

*] violation on
{{Article|New Party (Taiwan)}}. {{3RRV|TingMing}}: Time reported: 10:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

On the fourth revert, TingMing removed all reference to Taiwan. In all cases he has edit-warred with other users over having "Taiwan" in brackets. He has been warned in the past about 3RR and is an established user.

TingMing has also reverted ] four times in the last 24 hours. ] 10:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:Four days might even be a bit lenient given the disruption he appears to be causing in multiple locations, but four days should give enough time for the results of the request for checkuser to come in. -- ''']''' 16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
::See also ]. ] 16:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 7 days)===

*] has been placed on revert parole (1 revert per week) per ArbCom decision here . He violated this parole at ] page, while continuously attempting to remove link-references to UN resolutions. 15:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:

* '''Comment''':

:{{userlinks|Aivazovsky}} has been blocked for violating his revert parole for the sixth time. -- ''']''' 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

<!-- copy from _below_ this line -->

===] reported by ] (Result: No violation)===
'''Note: This is an Arbcom parole 1rr violation revert, not a regular 3rr violation report'''

User Dacy69 is on revert parole:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dacy69#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration.2FArmenia-Azerbaijan_2

He has only one revert per article per week. He was recently blocked for violating his parole by making 3 reverts within two days on the Heroes of Azerbaijan article. That still did not deter him. His first edit after being unblocked was another partial revert on the same article.

Here is the previous report which resulted in a block:

{{Article|Heroes of Azerbaijan}}. {{3RRV|Dacy69}}: Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->

*His revert:

This means that he once again violated his parole, as he did not wait 1 week since his last revert before making a new one. This brings the total up to 4 reverts within a 3 day period on the same article, even though his Arbcom parole clearly says that he can only make 1 revert per week per article.] 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': I think the ArbCom should review the case given the behavior of ]. He has been constantly edit warring, POV pushing, insulting and not assuming good faith against users based on nationality. This is despite the fact that most users after ArbCom turned to constructive editing, this one is only engaged in angry edit warring with several contributors at a time. ] 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:(Why are you even commenting on a arbcom violation report?) Read Misplaced Pages rules, ] does not apply to you or anyone else in the Arbcom (obviously not, because we were all in an Arbcom). I have not edit warred in any article. Infact, I still have not made a single revert on the ] article, even though there are items I dispute. Look at my user page, I have definetly contributed an immense amount to Misplaced Pages. Also, the only people editing based on nationality are Atabek and his pals here on Misplaced Pages. Besides, Atabek, another reason why ] does not apply to you is because of your constant attacks (personal attacks as well), your use of sock puppetry (]), stalking users (such as myself, obviously, as he is commenting on something that has absolutely nothing to do with him), stalking users (such as myself, obviously, as he is commenting on something that has absolutely nothing to do with him), among other things...

:Oh and by the way, here is what Edit warring his (from Misplaced Pages): ''An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article.''

:Please tell me Atabek, where have I repeatedly revert another persons edit? Infact, this whole Arbcom parole (1 revert per week per article) was set up so that we wouldnt be able to edit war, and we cant unless we want to break the parole. Atabek, dont waste your time trying to manipulate people by making false accusations.] 15:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
::Revert to which version? That's a link to the current version of the article. -- ''']''' 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:::My mistake, your right, but he still made a partial revert by removign the term Iranian. As you can see, Ali inserted the term Iranian (see here:) and obviously Dacey removed it, which is a partial revert.] 15:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:This is quite a stretch. All information in an article was added by ''someone'', but we are not expected to count the removal of even a single word as a ''revert''. I find it hard to believe Dacy intended to revert anyone, but rather just make a change to the article. -- ''']''' 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Nathan Hamilton}}. {{3RRV|Robin Redford}}: Time reported: 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

* Diff of 3RR warnings:
*1st warning
*2nd warning
* 3rd warning


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

:Well not all 8 diffs above are to reverts to the same edition. There are, however, 4 reverts among the 8 diffs and there seems to be an edit war warranting administrative action on this page. I have issued a 24h block. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
::I would point out that although they aren't all reverts to the exact same version, they all restore all or most of the article to an earlier version, and are, ''in effect'' reverts. ] ] 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
<!-- copy from _below_ this line -->

===] reported by ] (Result:18 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Zakuro Fujiwara}}. {{3RRV|190.10.0.64}}: Time reported: 20:40, 1 June 2007(UTC)

* Previous version reverted to: <!----> Keeps on reverting infobox color to purple, where hex code of another color is used. (Similar history with multiple other articles.)

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.-->
* Diff of 3RR caution:
* Diff of 3RR warning:
**18 hours. ] ] 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


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

*] violation on
{{Article|Hilda Toledano}}. {{3RRV|M.deSousa}}: Time reported: 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

This user is a well-known vandal of articles regarding the Portuguese royal succession. He has operated under numerous IP addresses before returning to a user name using his real name (Manuel de Sousa). He should be banned permanently, if not then for a long time. ] 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:Also, at the article ]: () and at the article ] (], "Poland" removal was done legitimately by me between his reverts and is unrelated to his edits). ] 22:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:I also ask that it be allowed for editors to revert his edits without risking being banned via the 3RR because Manuel de Sousa's edits are disruptive and POV. ] 22:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:This ought to be noted as well: ]. ] 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

*Blocked for 48 hours for the 3RR violation, this user clearly knows better. ] ] 23:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->

===] reported by ] (Result: 60 hours)===

*] violation on {{Article|Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon}}. {{3RRV|Stevewk}}: Time reported: 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

I been trying to get the articles with the WP:MOS and asked him to read the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style ... no luck ... ]
*Please provide diffs showing four reverts within 24 hours. Thanks. ] ] 23:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

These are the edit .. nothing new ... I think he forgot to take out a section heading in one of the edits .. so it's redlighted in one ...
Diffs between his version ...
* 1st
* 2nd
* 3rd
* 4th

Current version which he changed here ...

He also stated he doesn't care about the MOS, ala

] 23:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try and post a better formatted summary below-] 01:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
;Diffs for ]:
Original:
*1st:
*2nd:
*3rd:
*4th:

;Diffs for ]
Original:
*1st:
*2nd:
*3rd:
*4th:
*5th:
*6th:
*7th:

;Diffs for ]
Original:
*1st:
*2nd:
*3rd:
*4th:

:Blocked for sixty hours. The three-revert rule violations are overt and excessive. -- ''']''' 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 60 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Edward Gibbon}}. {{3RRV|Stevewk}}: Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning:

*'''Comment:''' I am posting this report in addition to the one above because it is a separate article, and the report is properly formatted (sorry about the EST). The user was edit warring over how the article displays, by adding non-breaking space html to force indent paragraphs. There is also the issue of the line break in the middle of the paragraph (look for "history, not a special case admitting..." in the diffs). Also, code that broke up the reference sections into multiple columns was reverted on multiple occasions. I believe I have solved the desire to add the forced indents (I showed the user how to use a custom stylesheet), however these latest reverts were after the user talk page discussion. Also, the edit summarizes are simply deceptive. They state they are doing one thing ''did away with forced spaces for indents.'', but actually are re-introducing the mid-paragraph line break at "history..." and removing the column code for the refs.-] 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
**I think he thinks that our only justified grievance is the hard spaces, and that's why the "did away with forced spaces" business; but he also hates infoboxes. Someone will have to explain to him about using article talk pages; I gave him a link to ], but he archived it. ] <small>]</small> 01:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also on {{article|Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire}}:
*Version reverted to:

*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
**Note charming edit summary. ] <small>]</small> 01:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:Same as previous section. -- ''']''' 02:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|User talk:Komdori}}. {{3RRV|Komdori}}:

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Komdori's filed 2 3rr reports on my edits, last two were denied. In retaliation he has been shadowing my edits and making reverts on articles that he has never participated in such the ] article. I left a message on his talk page asking him to stop shadowing my edits. He has deleted my comments labeling it as vandalism. While I'm not entirely certain if Komdori's deletions of my comments is '''Modifying users' comments''' and/or '''Discussion page vandalism''' or '''stubbornness''' per ], in any case he has reverted away my comments 4 times. Thanks.] 23:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

: The reverts you have provided are directly cited as "]" to the ]; specifically, "''reverts done by a user within his or her own user space, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere.''" --] 00:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::I didn't know that. Thanks.] 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:: Melon, come on, you leave insulting, race based remarks on my page and think it constitutes a 3RR violation when I remove them? You've been blocked for weeks at a time for 3RR, it's no surprise you've been gaming the system to try to stretch your limits. Any admin who investigates will see I was indeed involved in the discussion at ], and at least three separate editors have been trying to keep your unilateral and incorrect change from sticking. Who's the '''stubborn''' one? Now it's clear why you stubbornly insisted on putting those comments on my page--you were trying to disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a ]. --Cheers, ] 00:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Race based remarks?? Asking you to stop shadowing my edits is hardly racial. Check the reverts I'm referring to above. I don't care how you want to reason this out, just please stop following my edits and reverting them. Thanks.] 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: You've been spreading hate and calling me "Japanese" to other editors and in article talk pages. Even in the diffs you provided you spent a great deal of time discussing race. I have hundreds of pages on my watch list, hundreds on Korean subjects. We've only edited together on about three articles--if that's all you edit, it's not my fault you choose to edit about three articles total. That's not shadowing. Now that we've clearly established there was no 3RR violation, can you continue to argue somewhere else and avoid cluttering this page up? --Cheers, ] 00:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a violation of the three-revert rule for the reasons mentioned above (reverts were in user's own userspace). -- ''']''' 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Settler colonialism}}. {{3RRV|Rodrigo_Cornejo}}: Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning:
: '''Comment''' The user disregards practically every WP policy, including ] and ]: see ] The RV#4 was a violation of ]. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::I'd like some sort of explanation here because I cannot believe my eyes. Look at the timestamps above... I'm sure you're aware that the way this works is that the warning comes ''before'' the violation. You warned him at 01:49, 2 June (UTC) (your timestamps are ''so'' confusing; UTC-8? Is that Alaska?) and he has not reverted since. As for the incivility and personal attacks, I see none. If anyone was being incivil, it was you for he was a Nazi (unless I missed a portion of the conversation where he expressed that kind of sentiment). As for ... um... have you looked at your userpage recently? He's , but he does not appear to be as nefarious as you make him seem. No block from me unless you omitted a few details. -- ''']''' 02:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:::# Of course I warned him ''before'' the report. I copy/pasted timestamps, please take a look at histories. Yes, UTC-8 is correct.
:::# Is there something wrong with my user page? I don't see what.
:::# The suggestion to "ask for the mediation of someone who isn't jewish" isn't just "off-base and incorrect" - it is offensive, uncivil and ad hominem. We don't put yellow badge on users, and pointing this out is not suggesting that he's a Nazi.
:::# 4 RVs but you are warning the reporter seems rather like an encouragement. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 02:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::::# Yes, you warned him before this report, but you didn't warn him before his latest revert. You warned him at 5:49pm (your time) and his latest revert was 5:25pm (your time). The point of the warning is to demonstrate that the user is aware of the three-revert rule, not to say "just warning you that you're going to blocked in a half hour". Thus, the warning does not work here; if he reverts again ''then'' it's blockable.
::::# No, there isn't. I'm merely saying that for someone who thinks his ethnicity is irrelevant, you aren't very discreet about your faith on your user page.
::::# He thinks you're biased because you're Jewish and the article is question is somewhat related to Judaism. It's a common misconception from Wikipedians: you're Muslim, so you can't contribute neutrally to the ] article; you're European so you can't contribute to the ] article; you're human so you can't contribute to the ] article... the sentiment is off-base and incorrect, but it's not incivility. You are free to be offended, but I am also free to say that's a bit of a stretch. He was not saying you're Jewish just to be insulting; he was saying you're Jewish because he thinks (again... wrongly) that that makes you biased. No, Misplaced Pages does not require yellow badges, but users can, on their own accord, fill their user page with circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact that one is Jewish. You know... saying they observe Shabbat and having their wiki-contributions corroborate that. Or including a Talmudic quote... Or being apart of a few Judaism-related WikiProjects... if you don't like being identified as Jewish, no one is stopping you from changing your userpage. I myself don't look kindly upon slights based on ethnicity or religion, but this here was especially mild and hardly worthy of being considered a ''slight''.
::::# The warning noted in the section header is the warning you posted at 5:49pm; there's no need to add an additional one because it would be redundant. -- ''']''' 03:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::::: Then I guess my participation in Military history project makes me a warmonger. One's ''interests'' is one thing, ''self-identification'' is something different. We have specific policy against assumptions like that: ]. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 03:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::Oh c'mon. Are you suggesting assuming you're Jewish based on info on your userpage is a violation of ]? I sincerely hope your preceding comment was in response to something else... -- ''']''' 03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::: Unless one clearly identifies himself, their personal matters such as religion (or lack thereof), ethnicity, etc. are nobody's else's business. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::He has been warned about 3RR before, in March, and on this very article: ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Montenegrin cap}}. {{3RRV|Critikal1}}: Time reported: 10:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:

:The user has been blocked for forty-eight hours for violating the three-revert rule despite coming off a recent 3RR block. -- ''']''' 14:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

===] reported by ] (Result: Protected)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Persian Gulf}}. {{3RRV|Ralhazzaa}}: Time reported: 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
Has been a member since 2005 - he should know better.

:The ] article has been protected by somebody else instead. Again. -- ''']''' 14:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:18h)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Balhae}}. {{3RRV|220.127.90.111}}: Time reported: 18:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning: (first entry on their talk page)
**18 hours. ] ] 21:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Dealey Plaza}}. {{3RRV|12.158.190.38}}: Time reported: 20:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

User appears to be a sock of ] who has been previously blocked. A quick check of their contributions show them to be making identical reverts to the same articles, in an effort to avoid ].
*Please provide diffs to demonstrate violation. Thanks. ] ] 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:No need for a 3RR block here as the article has been protected. -- ''']''' 03:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|British National Party}}. {{3RRV|Emeraude}}: Time reported: 22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
**I've decided in this case to make a warning rather than blocking, even though the user is clearly aware of 3RR. The reason is that it seems to me that the user believes the reverts to be exempt when they are not. If the revert war continues, I will not be able to do this again. ] ] 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article| Braveheart}}. {{3RRV|Golfer45}}: 22:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert: (as Kanaye)
* 4th revert: (as Kanaye)

The editor is a long-time editor and is aware of 3RR. Simply, the editor is moving/removing the same content repeatedly under two IDs, ] and ], self-identified as the same person .

*'''Comment:''' Arcayne, I believe you've made several mistakes. First, the "previous version reverted to:" is a link that leads to the ''Children of Men'' article, not ''Braveheart''. Also, the 3rd and 4th revert is the same edit. This user has not violated 3RR. <span style="font-family:verdana">] </span><small>(] con])</small> 22:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:I don't see the four reverts; the last two diffs are the same. Additionally, I'm unsure how you know Golfer45 and Kanaye are the same person. -- ''']''' 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::Aww crap. Sorry about that. Two thingsa at once I can handle. Apparently, not three. As for the two IDs being the same person, the editor revealed as much . And I made the error; he was at three reverts, not four. My bad.

===] reported by ] (Result:no block)===

*] violation on
{{Article|SixHits_Digital_Radio}}. {{3RRV|Michaelyoung83}}: Time reported: 22:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
**Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. ] ] 03:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
**Links changed to diffs. ] 11:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
***OK. User has edited page in other ways since the vio, appears to have stopped removing the AfD tag. It looks like the issue is over, so I don't see a block as preventative. Update if user begins again. ] ] 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Movement to impeach George W. Bush}}. {{3RRV|Barnstormer1000}}: Time reported: 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* Diff of 3RR warning: User received a similar warning on his Talk page from another user at 06:22. This user appears to be a single purpose account. This is the only article he has ever edited.
**Already indefblocked by {{admin|AuburnPilot}}. ] ] 23:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|List of tributaries of Imperial China
}}. {{3RRV|Assault11}}: Time reported: 13:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
User has been deleting properly sourced information and he is making personal claims and opinions on the subject.
: The three reverts need to be from the same 24 hour period. --Cheers, ] 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I still think that the user needs to be at least warned, since he has been persisting this for a while. Deleting sourced information is not allowed. ] 22:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:::: Warn him then; why file a 3RR report without a 3RR violation? You've also reverted three times, in less than an hour. Nobody benefits from edit warring; it actually necessitated protection, and now no one can edit. --Cheers, ] 23:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Were you going to edit something? In any case, Assault11 got his version of the article frozen and I ''have'' warned him before. He is even making personal claims.

Don't start a discussion here. Its not the right place anyways. ] 23:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
**Article fully protected by another admin. No technical 3RR vio, but user should not have edit warred. ] ] 23:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:no vio)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Shankill, Dublin
}}. (] 21:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

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

User account created solely for the purpose of inserting POV into this article.
**Well, not technically a user account at all. But anyway, only 3 rv's given; need more than 3 for 3RR vio. ] ] 23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:no vio)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Talk:Elvira_Arellano}}. {{3RRV|Ramsey2006}}: Time reported: 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:

I want to avert an edit war here... The above user attempts repeatedly to insert Mexican-American wikiproject and category tags into the article and talk page. I tend to agree with the comments of ] in one of his edits to the article page, "The subject is neither American nor an anchor baby" and "It would be like applying the category "Presidents of the United States" to the Karl Rove article (from the Arellano talk page)." Ms. Arellano is a '''''Mexican national only'''''. If she were an American, she would not be notable by Misplaced Pages for she would not have problems with US immigration authorities. Her son ''is'' a US national. Accordingly, reference to Mexican-Americans for both the article and talk page should be deleted for her (Arellano) and instead added to the page created specifically for him by . This user seems to want to have it both ways but to do so is misleading, not honest and compromises the integrity of this article and its talk page.
*Only two reverts given here, insufficient for 3RR vio. ] ] 05:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
: Can I please ask you to reconsider? From what I read about 3RR, "Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours." Please note this user has been blocked on this same article before as well as warned about the article on Illegal Immigration. I stopped participating in the revert war as I could see where it was going... again. Then he would be accusing me of 3RR even though his edit is bogus, right? ] 05:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
::I see what you mean, yes. Still, I can't justify a block for two reverts, especially after only one block. This is the sort of thing for ]. ] ] 05:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Romualdo Pacheco}}. {{3RRV|WRK}}: Time reported: 02:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

user ] has made '''bad-faith''' efforts to '''expand''' the revert war to additional articles.


:The article has been protected, so there's no reason to block WRK (or you, who also violated 3RR). -- ''']''' 02:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts}}. {{3RRV|The way, the truth, and the light}}: Time reported: 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

* In the first two reverts, he removed ] from the list, an item he had removed before: The 3rd and 4th reverts are just simple reverts to previous versions of his. Has been editing tendentiously here (and elsewhere) for weeks now, and was blocked for 3RR on this very page a couple of weeks ago. Was asked to revert himself, but merely deleted the request. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

**As he explained above, the reverts were not all to the same version. The 3rd and 4th reverts were of changed not explained on the talk page, given the controversy around this article all non-minor edits really should be - the last post to the talk page was made by me. This is not an attempt to edit-war on my part.
**Also, the last revert was of a change by FeloniousMonk that I seemed to be a misunderstanding on his part; I have posted to his talk page about it. Finally, I removed the request to self-revert after FM had already edited to a compromise version and thus made it moot.
**Additionally, Jayjg is currently in a dispute with me over a different article and would never have come to this article otherwise. ] 02:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
***Jay has done the right thing by bringing this possible violation here. Furthermore, who brings to the community's attention your alleged violation has no bearing on the material issue: whether you violated 3rr. Either you violated 3rr or you didn't, and since I've noticed you repeatedly RV'ing others at a number of articles I wouldn't be at all surprised if you did. I would rule on this filing myself, but I've edited the same article, but I can say to whatever admin decides to rule on this that you appear to be a serial reverter. ] 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
:*Blocked for 48 hours for 3RR. ] 02:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Tina Turner}}. {{3RRV|Salmoria}}: Time reported: 03:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->

Warning given @ 02:10, 3 June 2007

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert: <!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
*Please provide diffs, not just timestamps, and a version reverted to. Thanks. ] ] 05:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
**Still not quite right: these are oldids. Need diffs, i.e., when you can see the difference between the revision and the one before. ] ] 06:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

***Sorry. The issues consist of: The User has been told that the references they keep using are non verified (refer to her talk page), and the links that are verifiable, many do not have the content that they say is being referenced. When they are continually informed of this matter, they result in silly comments on my own talk page. On top of this, you can note that half the comments on my talk page come from a supposedly different User. If they are one and the same User, then they have already been blocked for a similar revert war and nuisance behaviour. The other issue, is that even after fixing 'their edits' with proper referencing and formatting to assist them, they still revert. ] 08:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Soviet occupation of Romania}}. {{3RRV|Petri Krohn}}: Time reported: 04:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

* 1st revert: ,
* 2nd revert: ,
* 3rd revert: ,
* 4th revert:
**Article protected by {{admin|Phaedriel}}. Petri Kohn strongly urged to stop edit warring. ] ] 05:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Megafauna}}. {{3RRV|Ethel Aardvark}}: Time reported: 06:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
:*see also of ].
***Blocked for 24 hours. ] ] 06:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Large Group Awareness Training}}. {{3RRV|Smee}}: Time reported: 14:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

* 1st revert:
(removed previous edit '''without citing any sources and without providing a definition for white-collar-cult,''' by ])
* 2nd revert:
(removed previous edit '''without citing any sources and without providing a definition for white-collar-cult,''' by ])
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
'''Comment''' Just back from a 72-hour block for 3RR (her 6th such block) and despite a flood of promises on her talk page including one to practice 1RR (''"Focus on the principles of 1RR, even for vandalism actually, and instead go directly to the talk page, first"),'' {{userlinks|Smee}}, formerly {{userlinks|Smeelgova}} went 2RR with me when I made a revision as previously discussed in talk by three editors. This was after edit-warring with ] in the same article, ]. Again, I was making a change well-discussed on talk and Smee should not have warred with me over it. --] 14:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


=== Example ===
<pre>

<!-- copy from _below_ this line -->

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

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

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->



</pre>

Latest revision as of 19:52, 22 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270059834 by 25 Cents FC (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
    2. 16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270040967 by Ratnahastin (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
    3. 16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
    4. 01:28 15 January 2025 "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
    5. 11:55, 14 January 2025 11:55 "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
    2. 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Kanglu */ add"

    Comments:

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

    I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
    Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
    Xuangzadoo (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    More reverts , can someone do something? - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Page protected I also note the user has been alerted to CTOPS, which I protected the page under, so there will be no room for argument if this behavior continues. Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270884092 by RodRabelo7 (talk) Reverting for user specifying basically WP:IDONTLIKETHIS as their reasoning"
    2. 18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270880207 by EF5 (talk) I believe you have reverted this edit in error so I am adding it back. Rando tweet from a random organization? The Anti-defamation league is cited elsewhere in this article and this tweet was in the article previously. I simply copy pasted it from a previous edit. ADL is a trusted source in the perennial source list WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Anti-Defamation_League"
    3. 17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270877579 by EF5 (talk) Removing misinformation"
    4. 17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270854942 by Citing (talk) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
    5. 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Revert, this is not the purpose of the short description"
    6. 22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270715109 by Fakescientist8000 (talk) Elon is not a multinational"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Elon Musk." (edit: corrected diff)

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" (edit: added diff, fix date)


    Comments:

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

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

    Read the bright read box at WP:3RR (. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Objective3000 So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. Ergzay (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. Ergzay (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. Ergzay (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:3RR: There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. – RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. Ergzay (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
    The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. Ergzay (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording "LMAO, this is as trustworthy as Fox News" followed by "cannot see the pertinence of this" after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. Ergzay (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    What is a CTOP? Ergzay (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    A CTOP is a WP:CTOP. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. Ergzay (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    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)

    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:

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic