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 17:44, 25 May 2008 view sourceLulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,790 edits Fovean Author on Barack Obama← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:19, 24 January 2025 view source Drmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators407,819 edits →User:Wamalotpark reported by User:Ponyo (Result: ) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
{{moveprotected|small=yes}}
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
</noinclude>
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
]
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 73 |counter = 491
|algo = old(72h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
-->


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on {{Article|Criticism of Bill O'Reilly}}. {{3RRV|Croctotheface}}: Time reported: 02:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270068423|19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
# {{diff2|1270041541|16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
# {{diff2|1270039369|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1270041824|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
# {{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>
<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->


All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->


:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
*1st revert:
:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
*2nd revert: (reverts to from 10:53, 20 May 2008)
:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*3rd revert:
:: You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - ] (]) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*4th revert:
:: More reverts , can someone do something? - ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*5th revert:
::: {{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)
*6th revert:


== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==
*Diff of 3RR warning:


'''Page:''' ] <br />
Please note when determining the length of the block that the user made his sixth revert '''after''' the warning, and even went so far as to . Please also note that the reverts started right after page protection had been lifted and participants were warned for .
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kelvintjy}}
:BLP issues are immune to 3RR, csloat. Seriously, quit shopping for a block to try to force your POV into the article, sir. ] (]) 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::Excuse me? There is quite a bit of dispute about what makes up a BLP issue, but the above certainly isn't one. It's arrogant enough that he simply deleted my warning without comment, but the abuse of Misplaced Pages policies to further edit-warring behavior is an insult to the whole project. The BLP exception is there for cut and dried cases, not for you to further one side of a content dispute through edit warring. Look, Croc's actions were beyond the pale. For someone who is in the majority already - and flaunting it over and over as an excuse not to deal with the actual arguments on the talk page - to revert six times in 24 hours anyway is seriously abusive. Finally, I encourage you to read ]; after reading that that you can use my talk page to apologize for the gross insult to my character above, which I will not dignify with a further response. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 09:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::The continued placement of the slander by yourself and jim is a BLP issue regardless of whether or not you accept it. ] (]) 10:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Please stop misrepresenting the BLP issues on this page; admins are perfectly capable of looking at the O'Reilly page to see that what you're saying is completely false. By the way, I didn't see your apology on my talk page yet regarding your insults above; did you place it somewhere else? ] (]) 16:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::There is no apology granted for speaking the truth. ] (]) 05:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on {{Article|Criticism of Bill O'Reilly}}. {{3RRV|Jimintheatl}}: Time reported: 05:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230019964
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230184562


*Previous versions reverted to:


* (for revert 1)
* (for reverts 2, 3, 4)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*Diff of 3RR warning:


Hello
These reverts are not of the same material. Moreover, the last three reverts are of an edit that I believed had been previously agreed upon. Ramsquire, who initially removed the edit, explicitly agreed to its inclusion weeks ago. I addressed this history on the Talk Page of the article as follows:
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)
Your not knowing it was there is evidence that you weren't paying attention, not a basis for an accusation of bad faith. Review the discussion above, particularly under second try, and the prior section. I initially proposed a separate subsection under Media Matters dealing only with their "Stop the Homophobic Comments" campaign. I explicitly stated that I agreed to other editors' recommendation that what I had initially proposed as a subsection be reduced to a sentence or two, and I added the suggested edit. You didn't object to this proposed resolution. Given your history of almost instantly reverting my previous edits, I assumed you were in agreement. (After that, you and I had a prolonged discussion about edit warring.) During the discussion, Ramsquire, who agreed that a sentence or two could be appropriate, suggested that the edit might have more substance if GLAAD or others gay/lesbian org weighed in. This prompted additional research and the subsequent, broader, proposed edit "Allegations of Homophobia" in which I attempted to merge the different groups' criticism. Your objections to that edit were based on linking the different criticisms. You never advocated removing the existing material; your doing so after the extended debate about GLAAD/MM stunned me and could have lead me to accuse you of bad faith. I did not. The MM edit has been sitting in plain sight; I cannot be responsible for your failure to read it. I'd appreciate an apology.Jimintheatl (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*:@] 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)
::I would further add that as I was restoring an edit that had been extensively debated and, I thought, agreed upon, the deletions of that material were violations of the 3RR. The material, after much discussion, was added weeks ago. It's sudden deletion by editors who had either expressly agreed to its inclusion (Ramsquire) or who I believed had (Croctotheface) shocked me.] (]) 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
:::See ] - reverts do not have to be of the same material. - ] (]) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::::One more thing, and I apologize if this is overkill, but I ask that whoever is reviewing this matter look at (1) Ramsquire's recent comment on the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly talk page where he apologized if he mislead me (I do not think he did; there was a misunderstanding) and (2) the comments on Croc's Talk page where I am described as civil and responsive to questions. I am the first to admit that I argue my positions forcefully, and lengthily...,but I consider that a good thing compared to editors who offer pro forma objections (e,g,. violates BLP, undue weight, not sourced) w/o any argument to support their bald assertions. I had thought that Croc, while profoundly misguided on some points(kidding, mostly) was at least engaging in honest debate; his recent accusations are strong evidence to the contrary, and, well, really piss me off.] (]) 00:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for 24 hours) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ergzay}}
*] violation on {{Article|Corporals killings‎}}. {{3RRV|Traditional unionist}}: Time reported: 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
and


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
# {{diff2|1270885082|18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Reverting for user specifying basically ] as their reasoning"
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
# {{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 ]"
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
# {{diff2|1270878417|17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Removing misinformation"
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
# {{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:'''
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
# {{diff2|1270879182|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small|(edit: corrected diff)}}
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*1st revert:
# {{diff2|1270885380|18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" {{small|(edit: added diff, fix date)}}
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
This editor has a long history of edit warring, and has reverted four times in less than 24 hours (to 2 different version), including abuse of twinkle. ] (]) 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:Fifth revert added, which is a revert back to the version of 11:38, 20 May 2008. ] (]) 12:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:: suspect this user is a sock.] (]) 12:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::: evidence of a knowledge of WP rules. This user, knowingly, waded into an ongoing discussion adding controvercial weaslry.] (]) 12:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::::].
:::::That has no bearing on this violation again you are edit warring and the evidence you provided in your sock accusation is non existent so an IP reverts you, so what you still were in an edit war, and you have been warned and blocked before for this same thing. <strong>]</strong>] 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::And you have no reason to get involved. You have been warned about your civility already this week.] (]) 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


* This is a rather clear example of 3RR violation. Blocking ] for 24 hours - ] <sup>]</sup> 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: Stale, no vio) ==


Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*] violation on
{{Article|Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV|Fovean Author}}: Time reported: 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


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


:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 213644627 by ] (])Absolutely there is consensus on this - you apologists have been trying to undo it")</small>
::@] 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)
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 213678141 by ] (])Perhaps you missed the giant article on this?")</small>
:::]: {{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)
# <small>(edit summary: "Undo disruptive edits / violation of 3 rr's policy")</small>
::::Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. ] (]) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. ] (]) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::]: {{tq|There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons}}. – ] (]) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. ] (]) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. ] (]) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
:The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. ] (]) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. ] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording followed by after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. ] (]) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::What is a CTOP? ] (]) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::A CTOP is a ]. ] (]) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages.}} If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. ] (]) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. ] (]) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This is an incorrect characterization of the discussion. The people you were edit warring with said, correctly, that he was accused of having made what looks like the Nazi salute. As you know from the video and the sources provided, this is objectively correct. You just don't like the fact that reliable sources said this about him. Nobody is trying to put "Elon Musk is a Nazi" in the article. ] (]) 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
: Based on the comment in response to the notification for this discussion, {{tq|"I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it"}}, I was quite surprised to see that the editor didn't acquire an understanding of 3RR when in 2020. That's sometime ago granted, but additionally a lack of awareness of CTOP, when there is an edit notice at Musk's page regarding BLP policy, is highly suggestive of ]. This in addition to the 3RR warning that was ignored, followed by continuing to revert other editors, and eventually arguing that it must be because I am wrong. If there is an essay based on "Everyone else must be wrong because I'm always right" I'd very much like to read it. As for this report, I primarily wanted to nip the edit war in the bud which appears to have worked for now, given the talk page warning failed to achieve anything. I otherwise remain concerned about the general ] based indicators; disruptive editing, battleground attitude, and lack of willingness to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner. ] (]) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given that ''some'' of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that covers ''all'' edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with the ''letter'', but not the ''spirit'', of 3RR (In other words, another case of ])) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS. ] (]) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We are likely to see Ergzay at ANI at some point. But as I was thinking of asking for 1RR early today; I'm fine with that decision. ] (]) 00:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Good decision. I otherwise think a final warning for edit warring is appropriate, given the 3RR violation even excluding BLPREMOVE reverts (first 4 diffs to be specific). There's nothing else to drag out here given Ergzay intends to take a step back from the Musk article, and per above, there is always the ANI route for any future incidents. ] (]) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] My statement that you quoted there is because I'm a divisive person and people often don't like how I act on Misplaced Pages and the edits I make. People have dragged me to this place several times in the past over the years and I've always found it reasonably fair against people who are emotionally involved against dragging me down. That is why I said what I did. And as to the previous warning that you claim was me "not getting it", that was 3 reverts of the same material, and with a name 3RR the association is automatic. Edit: And I'll additionally add, I'm most certainly interested in building an accurate encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources. I'm still very happy to use sources that exist and they should be used whenever possible, but in this modern day and age of heavily politicized and biased media, editors more than ever need to have wide open eyes and use rational thinking. ] (]) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"''Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources''" See ]. ] (]) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::And ], while you're at it. ] (]) 19:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::"Use wide open eyes and use rational thinking (as defined by me)" seems to implicate ], as well. ] (]) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected one week; IP range blocked two weeks) ==
* Diff of warning: (several earlier warnings have been given)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul Cézanne}}
===Comment===
This particular editor has a ] and edit warring that are mostly reversions to the same article, although the editor normally takes care not to violate ]. Administrators may wish to consider this overall pattern when deciding on whether or not to block. In the interests of full disclosure, I have previously received a 12-hour block for edit warring on the same article. -- ] (]) 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}}
* Stale, and no 3RR violation. There's only been one edit in the last few days, to the talk page. I've warned him re: personal attacks; a brief glance at the contribs and usertalk page suggest there's a real issue here, but it's not particularly active at present. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Im really embarassed to have to report this, a user is edit warring to have his comments displayyed on my talk page even though I have removed them on '''ten''' occasions and issued a warning on 3 occasions to stop reverting my blanking in the past few 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:'''
# {{diff2|1271008376|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
and the 3RR warning is here ]
# {{diff2|1271010383|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
I don't want him blocked, I just want to be left alone ] (]) 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


* {{ #switch: d
|blocked| b = ] '''Blocked'''{{#if:|&nbsp;&ndash; for a period of '''{{{2}}}'''}}.
|bothblocked|blockedboth| bb = ] ] '''Both editors blocked'''{{#if:|&nbsp;&ndash; for a period of '''{{{2}}}'''}}.
|nomblocked|blockednom| nb = ] '''Nominating editor blocked'''{{#if:|&nbsp;&ndash; for a period of '''{{{2}}}'''}}.
|novio| no | nv = ] '''No violation'''.
|novioexplain| noex| ner|nve = ] '''No violation''' &ndash; there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the ] to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.
|stale| s = ] '''Stale'''.
|declined| d = ] '''Declined'''.
|malformed| mr | m = ] '''Declined''' &ndash; malformed report. Please use the report example at the bottom of this page to provide complete ].
|protected| pp |p = ] '''Page protected'''.
|protectedexplain| ppe | pe = ] '''Page protected''' &ndash; there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider ].
|warned| w = ] '''Warned'''.
|already| ab | a = ] '''Already blocked'''.
|comment| c = ] '''Comment'''{{#if:|&nbsp;&ndash; {{{2}}}}}
|note| n = ] '''Note'''{{#if:|&nbsp;&ndash; {{{2}}}}}
}}{{#switch:d|blocked|b|no|novio|nv||novioexplain|ner|nve|stale|s|declined|d|malformed|mr|m|protected|p|warned|w|ab|already|a|c|comment|n|note=|#default=}} - Note that ] seems to be taking care of this. - ] 20:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
== ] reported by ] (Result: 96 hours ) ==
*This is straight-up vandalism. {{U|BusterD}} semi-protected the article for one week, and I've blocked ] for two weeks.--] (]) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Reported user had self-reverted before the report was made) ==
*] violation on {{Article|Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz}}. {{3RRV|Boodlesthecat}}: Time reported: 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Droop quota}}
*Previous version reverted to: vary, usually the previous version by himself or one of the earlier versions by himself


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|68.150.205.46}}
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th:
*6th:
*7th:
*8th:
*9th:
*10th:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Please note that Boodlesthecat was recently blocked for 48h after a 3RR report for the same page (]), then unblocked after 5h - and immediately jumped back into revert warring. The editor is also very incivil on talk, constantly harassing his opponents and accusing them of bad faith, trolling, and so on (). Please also note that this user has been blocked 5 times this year so far for 3RR violations, harassment and disruption.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff|oldid=1271015536|diff=1271021273|label=Consecutive edits made from 08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1271020237|08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
## {{diff2|1271021017|08:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
## {{diff2|1271021273|08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1271014641|07:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "there is no consensus in talk. there is no government election today that uses your exact Droop. it is not what Droop says his quota was"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:Let's not pretend this is entirely one sided. I've already mentioned to you that you are not helping calm the situation by your comments and threats towards Boodlesthecat. We should be striving to calm things at the article, not exacerbate them. ] <small>(])</small> 18:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::Comments that he should be civil and that if he breaks 3RR he will be blocked? Well, I am not so sorry that as an admin I am trying to enforce our policies. Considering that Boodlesthecast is single-handedly waging a revert war - with 9 reverts in a single day after his unblock - and is reverting about 5 or 6 other editors (who are not reverting anybody but him, and who are all polite towards everybody else) I think it is quite clear what (or who) is the problem here. PS. I am afraid it is you who is not helping here, by trying to appease the user who just broke 3RR three time in less than 24h. Appeasement never works, it only makes such user bolder: as I predicted few days ago, by supporting his unblock from last 3RR violation you only convinced him he is immune to it.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not trying to appease anyone, and you are hardly enforcing policies when you restore BLP violations and threaten users who remove them. If everyone stopped the blame game and started being civil to one another, then you wouldn't need outside editors like myself trying to sort out this mess. ] <small>(])</small> 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Not a single of the 9 reverts I reported concerns a BLP violation. This is a simple case of 3RR warring (something that this user already has a block record of). I am not denying Boodlesthecat POV has some merits, and a consensus with more reasonable and neutral editors is possible, but we cannot reach it with a 9RR warrior harassing everybody who disagrees with him, I am afraid. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::I'm not defending a revert war (I don't agree with your interpretation that this is a 9RR, but that's another matter), what I'm trying to get through to you is that if you blame Boodles for everything and ignore the behavior of others like Greg park avenue as well as what you have said to Boodles yourself, you will do nothing but prolong this conflict. ] <small>(])</small> 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


:::::::], I would recommend that you explain the constant deletions of well sourced information from this article ''with reference to what WP guidelines justify these deletions'', rather than these continual attempts to orchestrate a team of editors to get their way via an orchestrated edit war (evidenced by the steady arrival of new editors who blindlt revert to your POV) designed to get other editors blocked. There have been zero arguments made justifying these constant deletions, and much ranting instead. You behavior constitutes a seriuos misuse of admin authority. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
In reading the "rules" for this page, this "discussion" needs to stay on the question at hand: Did boodlesthecat violate WP:3RR?
# {{diff2|1270714484|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ reply to Quantling"
# {{diff2|1270714531|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit reply to Quantling"
# {{diff2|1270714949|22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ addition"
# {{diff2|1270715070|22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit addition"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Discussion external to that needs to be taken elsewhere. If it continues, I, or others, may follow the directive at the top of this page, and remove it. - ] 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:I won't close this one since I acted on a previous complaint between the same people and the same article. If the concern is that the edit war is causing disturbance, then full protection is something that should be considered. If the matter raises issues that are larger than this noticeboard usually handles, consider transferring the complaint to ]. Since Piotrus is an admin I hope he is considering some ideas for resolving the conflict that might win general support. ] (]) 21:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


User has been edit-warring for the past 9 months to try and reinsert incorrect information into the article, despite repeatedly having had this mistake corrected, and a consensus of 5 separate editors against these changes. Request page ban from ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 22:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Both Boodlesthecat and ] reverted beyond 3RR. By numbers, Boodlesthecat was against a majority but by ethnic composition one might too easily see it as a Polish versus non-Polish revert war. A third, uninvolved party should help with getting the article right. ] (]) 21:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


:{{u|Closed Limelike Curves}}, the user appears to have self-reverted less than an hour after their last edit warring continuation, and 14 hours before your report. ] (]) 00:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Since my family is from Białystok, which side does that put me on? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, I missed that (I didn't notice the last edit was a self-revert). ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:68.150.205.46, thanks for self-reverting. Can you agree not to re-add the same material until a real consensus is found? An ] could help. ] (]) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely) ==
Boodlesthecat is on the 10th revert now. Are we going to allow such behavior to continue and wait to see if he can have 20 reverts in 48h? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:No, we're not. Just tell ] to back off. ] (]) 21:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::] is here, muhahaha :) --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
96 hours. You just can't revert that much against established users, I'm sorry, no matter how right you are. ] (]) (]) 21:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
*Ok, having looked a bit more closely, I see that {{user|Poeticbent}} also went over the limit (4 reverts). 24 hours for him as well. ] (]) (]) 21:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


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


'''Previous version reverted to:''' ]
I'm not sure where to report this, but this seems like as good a place as any. On the ] page, there is linguistic content about the relationship between Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Arabic. For the last two weeks a single user has been continually pushing a pro-Arab POV. I have reverted this inserted information with the note to take the issue to the Talk Page. This anonymous user, using different IP addresses has continued to change the article without a peep on the Talk page. I'm fairly certain that the different anonymous numbers represent a single user because the changes he introduces are word-for-word the same each time. What can be done? I'm new to reporting abuse of Misplaced Pages. (] (]) 18:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC))


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hrs ) ==
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]


*] violation on {{Article|Seattle SuperSonics proposed relocation to Oklahoma City}}. {{3RRV|Coz 11}}: Time reported: 20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


*Previous version reverted to: various reverts, see below


<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] (from User:Farshwal themselves)
User has edited the article nearly 30 times in the past 25 hours, and these specific edits appear to be more than three reverts within a 24 hour span, as defined by the rules:


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
*1st revert: (removing sourced content)
*2nd revert: (removing content)
*3rd revert: (restoring phrase about '''NBA's concern...''' -- , previously seen at that diff)
*4th revert: (removing content added )
*5th revert: (removing content)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*Diff of 3RR warning:


Hi, I'm just an uninvolved third-party editor who came across this 3RR violation involving the change of "Parmar Rajputs" to "Jats" in the article lead sentence. The editor themself has made a post on the talk page as seen in the diff above, but they continued to edit-war without getting a consensus first at that talk page discussion. Also worth noting the editor had received a in Sep 2024 for similar disruption, such as ], where they also made an edit changing something to "Jats". —&nbsp;] ] 09:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*Has also been warned twice in the past regarding the same article:
* '''Comment''': In ] , they are using a slur against the ] caste by calling it "R***put" meaning "Son of Wh***", which is also the caste they are deliberately removing from the article. That in itself merits an indef.] (]) 12:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
,
*Blocked indefinitely.--] (]) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: OP indeffed) ==
*And, previously blocked for 3RR violations on the same article
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] <small>]</small> 20:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Bhanot}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|DoctorWhoFan91}}
{{Comment}}Now what should I say, this reckless person has crossed all limits for three revert rule and spamming on user talk with thrustful comments , and he keeps bothering me repeatedly with the same fabricated nonsense. He keeps giving those mocking statements against me for commissioning an report and is persistently stuck on the same matter over and over again. I want him to be punished for his vile actions, and for the offensive things he has said in his statements, which had a bad influence on people. He is going to everyone’s talk pages


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] and ] reported by ] (Result:no action) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on {{Article|Car bomb}}. {{3RRV|Domer48}} & {{3RRV|BigDunc}}: Time reported: 23:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
#
#
#
#


*Previous version reverted to:


Both users have effectively assumed ownership of the article, offering no explanation of their reversions of my edit - despite invitation to do so.


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


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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Both users have subsequently removed the warnings from their talk pages. They often work in tandem to start revert wars of articles within a certain topic area.


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:3RR is for one individual, not tag-team reverting. Additionally, there have only been two reverts by those two all day. 3RR is four reverts for a violation. Decline action here. ] (]) 10:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==


:I suspect a ] is coming here, but for now I'll say to OP, don't make personal attacks . Bafflingly, you linked to the NPA policy in the same edit summary. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 11:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*] violation on {{Article|Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti}}. {{3RRV|86.154.178.231}}: Time reported: 01:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


:The OP account has been reported to AIV by ] with the suspicion that it's yet another sockpuppet account of User:Truthfindervert: ]. —&nbsp;] ] 11:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
:Yeah, kinda funny isn't it, a sockpuppet accusing others of edit-warring after move-vandalising. OP has been reported to AIV and SPI btw, so this will just led to them being blocked faster lol. ] (]) 11:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Could somone move the page back after OP is blocked, they have done it again. ] (]) 11:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah let's give the bots that fix the double-redirects a break and stop move-warring the page until the account is blocked. It's only gonna clutter the page histories and logs more and more, and the title the person is trying to move the page to isn't an unconstructive title anyway. —&nbsp;] ] 11:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Apologies, I got carried away trying to stop the bot. ] (]) 11:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sock, not bot, sorry. ] (]) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:I will now direct any visiting mods to Tested account , so yes, this should be a ]. I do not know this user but there are multiple accusations of this being an LTA sock. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 11:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::The account is a suspected sock of ], see ]. Pinging {{Ping|Ivanvector|zzuuzz|Izno}}. - ] (]) 11:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I had said this before as well—you are the same people @]@] who want to manipulate the article in your own way and keep editing it to portray it in the same context of that past misunderstanding and conflict. So, I have nothing for you. You just keep putting in your efforts, but the consequences of your violative actions will come to you eventually. I have no answers for that, but when you are found guilty, you will have to deal with them on your own.
:::This is my last reply, requesting administrative intervention as the accuser under the three-revert rule. ] (]) 11:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* I have '''indefinitely blocked''' ]; almost certainly a sock but even if they aren't, they're being wildly disruptive and attacking others. ] 11:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:The page has also been move-protected for 2 days following a ] I made at RPP/I. —&nbsp;] ] 11:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|United States Board on Geographic Names}} <br />
*1st revert:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Wamalotpark}}
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
This editor has been making a series of disruptive reverts across a number of pages by re-including material that other people have removed such as lists of siblings and biographical details for those siblings on the pages of royal individuals (something we simply don't do) and also by filling articles with lots of useless info that we normally don't include. FactStraight, another user and myself have been trying to restore some of these pages to a point where we can work on improving them but as you can see, from this and also from the user's contribution history, it is difficult to do so. Two other users and another IP, I believe, have done or are doing the same sorts of things and concern has been expressed that sockpuppetry is in play here. The user has also been reverting to include a non-standard, to say as kindly as possibly, system of dividing the articles with headings. However, the 3RR is concerned here (although I think the background information is important). ] 01:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:Please note that this anonymous editor has been warned not to violate 3RR, in multiple edit summaries and on the talk page of articles he subsequently edited. See: and . Most recently, when requested in edit summary to explain the grounds for his repeated reversions on the Talk page, . ] (]) 08:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
# ]]
#
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::Thanks for commenting, FS. Please also see the exchange on FS' talk page as it is indicative of the anonymous user's attitude toward editing on Misplaced Pages. ] 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
* Tempted to let this go as stale, but the IP's comments give reason to believe it will be an ongoing problem. Blocked for 24 hours. If there are dynamic IP issues, we could consider semi-protection. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*] violation on {{Article|England and Wales}}. {{3RRV|DaveJP}}:
User has three times inserted what looks like extreme right wing propaganda in the above page. He has attempted to disguise it as a "spelling mistake" which is clear evidence of malicious intent.
Time reported: 13:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


*Wamalotpark is edit warring with multiple editors across multiple articles, and are making the same edits .-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
* Blocked for 24 hours; with the additional IP edits, which are clearly the same user, he's over 3RR. Given the offensive nature of the edits, any further disruption should probably result in an indef-block. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
*The charge is obviously correct. ], I reverted you because no advantage should go to the edit warrior. If you revert again you will be blocked. The logged-out editing is another matter, a more serious matter, and as it happens I can see just how much of it you have been doing. You should stop doing that esp. if, as you did here, you seem to be doing it to avoid scrutiny, because it's abusive and you are going to get blocked for it. ] (]) 00:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation - Reporter warned.) ==

*] violation on {{Article|User:Betacommand/Edit count}}. {{3RRV|Betacommand}}: Time reported: 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to:

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

Explanation:

The community agreed that in edit count lists some users ] by placehorder user name ].

User:Betacommand posted a new list with no names replaced. According to the agreement I replaced my name with "Place holder" Betacommand reverted my edit with edit summary "Vandalism" and issued a threat to me. Then he reverter with summary "NOT censored", which is inapplicable because this is not[REDACTED] article. This is a hobby and fun exercise of some wikipedians. I think Betacommand must he reprimanded for his behaviour forcefully disrespectful both to me and to the commiunity decision. ] (]) 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:please read ] <blockquote>Reverts performed by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.</blockquote> are exemp ] 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::I am a living person and it is very hotly discussed that edit count is very controversial material which was by the way the reason for the compromise solution of using ], which I did for my name. . ] (]) 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::but its sourced perfectly. ] 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Your wikilawyering does not adds glory to you. You are ignoring the decision of the community you your fellow wikipedians who want only one: don't engage in your editcountitis epidemia. Also you again, as with vandalism, fail to read policies carefully: ''biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material'': please notice the two slamm letters, 'o' and 'r' in the word "or". Now please recall that the editcount page itself says that editcount is <read it yorself>.] (]) 15:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::maintaining accurate data is a good thing, Im sorry if you dont like it, but tough. you dont get to censor information that you dont like. ] 15:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I have right to remove false, controversial, biased or otherwise detrimental information about me. ] (]) 15:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::that page is none of the above, stop attempting to push you POV. ] 15:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::My POV is no worse than yours and I am entitled to it when spoken about me in wide public. And yes that page is severely biased, as longly talked in talk page and its long archives. ] (]) 16:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:If (for reasons I admit I don't understand) Mukadderat doesn't ''want'' to be in this list, where is the harm in letting him not be on the list? I don't get why we need quotes from a rule book to solve this problem- a little courtesy would do the trick. ] ] 15:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::Courtesy is what Betacommand lacks severely: he accused me of vandalism, threathened to block me in my talk page and obvioulsy has no intention to apologize. ] (]) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::It is his user subpage, thus, he is exempt from 3RR in this particular case. If anybody is violating 3RR (or close to it) it is you. - ] (]) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::::No he is not. Please review the thread above. He cannot force biased personal information about me even in his talk page. And he cannot call me vandal. ] (]) 16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Personal information!? HA! That is highly public information. Please, nobody is going to get blocked for this unless you continue to revert on somebody elses subpage. - ] (]) 16:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Personal information means information about person. In real world people get sued for printing biased information. ] (]) 16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just now it came to my attention that Betacommand is an admin. This makes his disrespectful behavior even more appalling. And I understand nobody is going to reprimand him. Well, what can I say besides Allah is forgiving. ] (]) 16:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:um, . - ] (]) 16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::um back:
::: 18:06, 17 January 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs) unblocked Betacommand (Talk | contribs) ‎
::Whatever. ] (]) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Yeah, Betacommand used to be an admin, but he was desysopped a long time ago. In fact, he was desysopped for what amounts to the same type if behavior he's displaying here - jumping the gun on accusing people of bad intentions, bending the rules to fit his own agenda, and poor communication. Some things don't change. ] (]) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::He was an admin before, but hasn't been one in quite a while. - ] (]) 17:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|nv}} - ] (]) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree with Rjd0060's ruling. In the past there have been very hot debates about whether people could remove themselves from this list. See ]. It seems that on May 20, and again on May 22, Betacommand created a file ] in his own user space which parallels the information normally available in ], but with the difference that he no longer uses ] to replace the names of people who want to be omitted from the list. He is not singling out Mukadderat, he is doing this for everybody. My perception is that our policy does not currently give Mukadderat the right to remove his information from Betacommand's copy of the list. If he wants to discuss the matter further, he should post his complaint at ], where there is already a thread about the topic of removing yourself from Betacommand's list. ] (]) 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::::This is one ugly piece of wikilawyering. People wanted their name absent from such lists. Period. So what, now each and every one can create a separate copy of this list and we must have a separate policy to cover each list? Whatever. Obvious demonstration of disregard of the desire of 30+ wikipedians in good standing to exclude them from this game. Duly noted and added to wikilawyer list. ] (]) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Though no 3RR violation occurred, the debate about keeping the list is continuing at ]. ] (]) 13:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|My Chopped Liver}}. {{3RRV|Catchpole}}: Time reported: 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

*Note: we are in a slow edit war over on these episode pages. While we are not technically in a 3RR position, we will be soon. I request page protection until this issue can be resolved on the talk page. The editor's talk page will indicate that this is not an isolated editing pattern (nor is mine); whilst there has been some acrimony over the editing procedures on this topic, most other editors have demonstrated willingness to discuss along content lines that have been part of an ongoing debate for 7 months now. Neither of us wants to end up blocked over this issue, I am certain. ] (]) 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:Eusebeus appears to be reporting his own reverts. Note that I have not been reverting, each of my edits today has been to add new information to the article. ] (]) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been no 3RR violation. If you feel protection is needed, report this to ]. ] (]) 01:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

NB: Copy and pasted from ] on request.

*] violation on {{Article|User talk:86.29.142.126}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

*Diff of 3RR warning:

:<font color=darkgreen> I thought I needed to keep the warning history up for the ] request that was pending. Next time, I'll try to put the vandal warning template in the summary line too.</font> ] (]) 20:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

::I don't want to make anything big out of this, because you were trying to the right thing. Just read this and I'm sure you'll understand: ]. ] (]) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:::When there's this type of blatant vandalism in progress, there's not much wrong with restoring the warnings. However it is usually best to just mention to AIV that the warnings are being removed. It will be readily apparent from the vandal's contributions. Result: the vandal was blocked and the page was protected. No further action. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|Isis Gee}}. {{3RRV|Eurovisionman}}: Time reported: 22:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
After repeated warnings about 3RR and BLP and attempts to mediate his concerns ] continues to edit war and add disputed material to ]. See where he adds back essentially the same information about 6 times . I became involved with this in an attempt to resolve the frustrations of another editor participating in a MECAB discussion I’m mediating. Prior to this I’ve not been a party to this article and have never requested 3RR enforcement before.

Blocked for 24 hours ] (]) 01:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|Muhammad al-Durrah}}. {{3RRV|ChrisO}}: Time reported: 00:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


*1st previous version

::This version does not contain the sentence “French court ruled that his 'death' may have been staged, and was in any case unlikely to have been caused by IDF soldiers.”

*2nd previous version (same as 1st)

::Among many other changes, Category:Violence in media has been removed.

*3rd previous version (same as 1st)

::Category:Violence in media has been removed.

*4th previous version (same as 1st)

::Category:Violence in media has been removed.

*5th previous version (same as 1st)

::Removes citation (among other changes).

<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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


*ChrisO is an admin, and has blocked others for 3rr violations: , in addition to having been blocked himself <del> twice for 3RR, and being blocked for edit-warring </del> for 3rr (with mention of edit-warring) -- which he has a long history of in this topic area .

This is another frivolous request for sanctions from a problem user with a track record of harassing admins (background: he objects to my involvement in ] and recently filed a frivolous and speedily rejected request for arbitration against me as retaliation). For the record, the article in question has been the subject of a French libel case which was concluded on Tuesday. Two editors and an anonymous IP address separately added a number of inaccurate and outright POV contributions to the article. As the diffs show, in all but one of my five edits, the material being reverted or reworded was different on each occasion. I might also point out that the article is covered by ], as it concerns serious allegations against living people (who have sued others for libel concerning those allegations) - thus ] applies. (IronDuke, note this well - "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves.") -- ] (]) 00:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

::My arb request was neigher frivolous nor speedily rejected. After several days, three arbs decided that more dispute resolution should occur, and that the request was therefore "premature." Had it been frivolous, it would indeed have been speedily removed.

::BLP does not apply to the reversions you made, and the subject of this article is dead.

::I will also note that subsequent to my informing Chris that I had filed the report (as a courtesy), he -- literally -- threatened me on his talk page. . Note also the edit sumary of "gloves off." <font color="green">]</font> 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Much of the article concerns allegations against people who are very much alive and have sued for libel, so BLP very definitely does apply. The article has been and is being targeted by POV-pushers who wish to state the allegations as fact - not acceptable under either ] or ]. As for the warning on my talk page, since you have a track record of harassing administrators whose actions you disapprove of, I think you can expect some close scrutiny in future. -- ] (]) 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Yes, the article mentions living people. No, your edits were not calculated to protect them; I note you never mention BLP in your edit summaries. There may well be POV-pushing going on, though I think it possible that you are engaged in it as well.

::::I do not believe I have ever harrassed an adminstrator in my entire career here. I will question when I see an adminstrator - or regular editor- doing something I think is unhelpful, but I do so within the letter and the spirit of policies here, something I don't think you can claim. Contrary to your assertion, I am not a problem user. I have never been blocked, or even threatened with it, except by you. I note that you, ''as an admin'', have been blocked relatively recently.

::::You are free to scrutinize me, though I hope you are aware that you may not block me for reasons good or bad, due to our long and (very unfortunate) ever-growing record of conflict. I also hope you won't edit-war with me -- you'll note I'm not reverting your edits (though I disagree with some of them), and I'd like to keep things that way. However, if I violate 3rr, feel free to drop a report here. I could hardly blame you, could I? <font color="green">]</font> 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Addendum: can you say, for each of your edits, which ''specific'' living person was being protected? <font color="green">]</font> 01:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't see how we can censure an editor for going over 3RR if he can make a reasonable case that he is removing BLP violations. The fact that there is a court case where specific individuals were charged for libel makes it an obvious BLP issue. I don't think we have to do a complete analysis of who is right for every specific claim. From quickly reading over the recent edits to the article you can tell that defamation is arguable, in many different directions. I hope that Chris will not continue to revert without a more detailed discussion on the article's Talk page, where he has not left any comments so far. If after this moment there is an ongoing revert war we should consider protection. ] (]) 01:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::Well, respectfully, I'd ask you the same question I asked Chris: which edits that Chris made protected a ''specific'' person? In fact, all the POV edits to this article, from both sides, are simply skewing the story towards "The Palestinians staged it," to "The journalist committed libel." Chris's edits are more supportive of the those who condemn the journalist, which would ''violate'' BLP, not defend it. And I can't see how repeated removals of the category Violence in Media is somehow a BLP issue -- and that's three of the reversions. Another is removing a source saying the Israelis could not have killed al-Durrah (which is a BLP violation how?) and the other reversion also removes material that supports the Israeli position. All of which may be justifiable, but not on BLP grounds, and not for violating 3rr. <font color="green">]</font> 03:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I presume by "journalist" you mean the defendant blogger (not journalist) rather than the plaintiff TV reporter. The simple fact of the matter is that the case has been badly misreported by many English-language blogs, which some editors have tried to use as sources. Other editors have misrepresented what the court's verdict actually said (as in ). The verdict is a lot more nuanced that some have claimed - it upheld the finding that the blogger's comments had been defamatory but quashed the libel conviction, and it said there was legitimate doubt about the accuracy of the reporter's reporting, but did not support the plaintiff's allegations. Now, considering that this article concerns a court case for defamation, as well as covering the allegations that are the subject of the case, we have a responsibility to ensure that the case is reported accurately. It would be irresponsible for us to let the article state as fact claims that a court ''has already found to be defamatory'', and it would be just as irresponsible to misrepresent the court case in a way that would itself be defamatory. Many political activists want to "convict" the reporter but that's not what we're here for. -- ] (]) 07:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I should add that no revert war is ongoing, and I have discussed some of the edits with one of the editors involved (see ]). -- ] (]) 07:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverts occured, in this particular instance, on the 21st and 22nd of May. It's now the 23rd. '''Stale'''. ]] 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|Khairy Jamaluddin}}. {{3RRV|Parlimen Rembau}}: Time reported: 00:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to:

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

*Diff of 3RR warning 1:
*Diff of 3RR warning 2:

* Despite warnings, this user continues to make the same reverts.

::'''Stale'''. ]] 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|Mark Hanau}}. {{3RRV|Aimulti}}: Time reported: 00:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

*4 reversions to previous version within this diff: 23:19, 22 May 2008<!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
This occurred immediately after release of blocks for personal attacks and sockpuppetry, both related to this article.

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

*Diff of 3RR warning:
*Diff of second 3RR warning (nobody else has edited article since this warning)
* Related discussion on ]. ] <small>(])</small> 05:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I NEVER was involved in sockpuppetry. Someone I knew joined the debate, without my knowledge, and I was honest enough to admit that this person was probably known to me. How can I control the actions of others?
I even went so far as to tag them as one topic editors (with the other two one topic editors) but somehow got logged out and my IP, instead of user name, appeared on the tags. I was again accused of using a sockpuppet but was later cleared. I have played by the rules (unlike others involved in this heated debate) but have made some errors as I am new to Misplaced Pages (Novice editor). This special interest (hate group) attack on me has nothing to do with the quality of Misplaced Pages but is vendetta motivated. NOTE. I DO NOT include Todd in this group, just the one topic editors so tagged.] (]) 07:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:'''Stale''' ]] 10:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: x2 24 hour blocks ) ==

*] violation on
{{Article|Allegations of state terrorism by the United States}}. {{3RRV|DrGabriela}}: Time reported: 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to:

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

# <small>(edit summary: "Here is more of your "evidence" that I agree with half of the editors: the Japan section in full is appropriate. Sorry to disagree with you, William.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Once more.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "revert account with only a small handful of edits and no participation on the talk page about this subject.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "revert Merzbow's billionth sock puppet.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "very funny. Revert vandal SPA account.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "fprdm")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "rv vandal SPA account")</small>

* Diff of warning:

SPAs out of control. I've already requested full prot at ], we will never have peace until this ] finishes. —] (]) 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:Like A Rainbow and Dr.Gabriela both blocked for 24 hours for extreme 3RR violation. I will watch the article and take further action if necessary. ]] 10:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: 2x 24 hour blocks ) ==

*] violation on {{Article|Kerala Nadvathul Mujahideen KNM}}. {{3RRV|Almalabaari}} and {{3RRV|Joeblckw}}: Time reported: 09:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

*6 reversions to previous version within this diff:

While both editors have been reverting each other over this and so I feel I ought to report both, I have some sympathy with the argument of Joeblckw in that he has been removing fairly egregious POV-pushing. ]<sub>(])</sub> 09:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:Alm. and Joe. both blocked for 24 hours. ]] 10:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV|Andyvphil}}: Time reported: 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

# <small>(edit summary: "Ayers:“Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.” Google it.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "rv weaselly revert 214358883 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Wright is an "activist", Ayers and Dohrn were terrorists, and since they -admit- to being bombers it's hardly libel to say so.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 214435958 by ] (]) restore material necessary for NPOV")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "rv rvt 214421028 by Modocc. Undo weasel, again.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Presidential campaign: estore Ayers")</small> <small> ''(added by --] <sup>]</sup> 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC))''</small>

(3rd and 4th edits are consecutive, so I suppose the count as one)

This user has previously been blocked for edit warring on the same article. This is largely revolving around a content dispute on one of Misplaced Pages's most popular articles. -- ] (]) 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:I've added another revert by Andy that seems to be a gaming of the system by waiting 25 hours from his first revert in order to restore his preferred wording. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

* Blocked for 1 week, given several prior 3RR violations and blocks. There are a handful of additional reverts just outside the 24-hour window, e.g. , which add to a picture of ongoing edit-warring and possibly gaming 3RR. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|Tibet}}. {{3RRV|Chenyangw}}: Time reported: 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

*6 reversions to previous version within this diff: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

*Diff of 3RR warning:

This user was blocked less than three days ago for edit warring on this article, specifically for trying to insert the exact same text that he continues to revert to. Once his block expired, he resumed the edit war. He initially demanded sources saying that the Chinese government were the ones questioning the report (even though the Chinese census is quoted in the next sentence). Then, when I rewrote the sentence to clarify exactly what the findings are conflicting with, he reverted again as being poor english. Subsequent reverts have demanded that I use the talk page, but without explaining further why he's reverted the changes. ] (]) 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:Stale. ]] 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] and ] (Result: Warned Chiefofall) ==

Help! These two users are deliberately removing well-sourced material and accusing me of being near or in violation of 3RR in order to prevent the term ''hindu fanatic'' from appearing in the article ]. Block text of the ] source can be read on my ] to easily check my contribution. The other source is the ], which also used the phrase (this separately sourced contribution was never questioned just removed with the same bad faith broad brush as the other, even after it had been completely corrected). I also have recent, respectable sources on ''Hindu fanatics'' who have slaughtered ], but I don't see how to add them when these two editors have starte to play bad faith 3RR games. --] (]) 03:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
: I've given {{user|Chiefofall}} a final warning for seven reverts within 24 hours, as no prior warning was given. I should also note that {{user|Firefly322}} has three reverts (close, but no cigar) and I find no violation with {{user|PhilKnight}}. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 03:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
=== More reverts and edit history wiki-lawyering without discussion ===
:: {{user|Chiefofall}} continues to remove material without serious and meaningful talk-page discussion. and user ] (an administrator!) appears to be encouraging this edit war. --] (]) 16:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|Office_Open_XML}}. {{3RRV|HAl}}: Time reported: 12:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

*6 reversions to previous version within this diff: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

*Diff of 3RR warning:

Previous warnings used to show knowledge of the rule.
*
*

Previous ban for 3rr violation
*

Stale report of another 3RR violation proving additional proof of edit waring.

HAl has a history of using reverting as an editing style. He has removed the same section of the ] section 4 times within the last 24hours. Attempts to discuss this with him have failed . He does not have consensus or the right to remove referenced claims on the page but continues to do so regardless of the rules. HAl has broken the rule at least one time before and is well aware of the 3RR rule. Even if you only count 3 it is a example of edit warring.] (]) 12:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

: All my edits were on previous revert edits by ] who stated by reverting by ]
: His 4 reverts were:
:
:
:
: .
: Also ] repeatedly ignored clearly referenced information on the talk page which showed his revert was readding info that is totally out of date and incorrect. There was clearly referenced evidence on the talk page showing the information being incorrect. He has not brought forward newer information to counter that ] (]) 14:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

::That is from multiple days. From the 20th-24th. This is not the place to discuss content differences. Even though you have twisted the rules and meaning to try and make it look like you are in the right. ] states the threshold is verifiability. Its referenced , and rather discuss this, you have reverted it.] (]) 15:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

:{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ] (]) 16:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 and 48 hour blocks ) ==

*] violation on {{Article|Alex Jones (radio)}}. {{3RRV|Hereward77}}: Time reported: 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

*1st revert:
*2nd revert: (revert to )
*3rd revert: to second "original" version above
*4th revert: to second "original" version above

*Diff of 3RR warning:
#
#
# (oops, that was mine, on the same article)
#
**] initiated this POV smear campaign and has been for edit warring on this article. --] (]) 18:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
**I wasn't going to bring it up, but has been blocked on numerous occassions for 3RR, at least once on this article. &mdash; ] ] 18:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
:*Arthur, can you please give the rationale why was justified under ] (as argued in your edit summary)? ] (]) 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
::*Including his occupation without including what he's actually known for seems to be arguably a BLP violation. In regard the infobox, it clearly puts him in a false light. To counteract Hereward77's invevitable counterclaim that including ] is a BLP violation, we have 7 sources in the lead that he's known ''as'' a ]. Whether they all support he's known ''for'' being a ] is unclear, as I haven't read '''all''' of them. &mdash; ] ] 18:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
:::*He is an outspoken ]. Stating his political views in the infobox would be inappropriate, just as it would be in the ] infobox. --] (]) 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
::::*It's hard to fathom how his reputation could be harmed by him *not* being labelled as a conspiracy theorist. This could be a true fact about him, I'm just finding the BLP argument hard to see. ] (]) 19:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::*Not stating what he ''is'' known for (being a conspiracy theorist) in favor of things he is ''not'' known for (television host) in the infobox clearly shows him in a false light, but probably doesn't rise to being a BLP violation. On the other hand, I only have 3 reverts, as the removal of the infobox cannot rationally be called a revert. even though the infobox obviously wasn't there at some point in the past. &mdash; ] ] 19:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

* '''Result''' - I have blocked Arthur Rubin for 24 hours and Hereward for 48 hours. Both were edit warring and both broke ]. ]] 20:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|Anti-Americanism}}. {{3RRV|Life.temp}}: Time reported: 18:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

*Diff of warning:

This is actually 27 rather than 24 hours but reverts aren't an entitlement and there is a wider pattern of disruption at work here. Life.temp has been gutting sections of this article repeatedly for more than a month, evident in his contrib's. Above he cuts the same sourced section four times (these aren't reverts to the same identical version—in the third he cuts an extra swath—but the primary removal is there in all four.) He has made clear that he is going to continue to do this despite being the only editor advocating gutting the article; three different editors have reverted him in the above cycle. Given that this has been going on for a month I think he needs to be hit with the cluestick. Admin Henrik had to lock down the article for a week and I'm considering his unprotection statement a warning: "Deleting wide swaths will just be reverted, and will probably get the editors doing it blocked for disruption at some point." Disruption is just what we have; the article is being held hostage to these mass removals. ] (]) 18:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

:Stale. ]] 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

==] reported by ] (]) (Result: Stale. )==
*] violation on
{{Article|Vladimir Putin}}. {{3RRV|Muscovite99}}: Time reported: 19:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to:

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

::<s>1. <small>(edit summary: "Put the quote back in the proper form")</s> Was included by mistake. ] (]) 21:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Improper removal of content")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Economics statistics have no place in the lead of a biography")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "the teplate not explained by any specific evidence")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Mere speculation")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Economy figures are not relevant to BLP article much less to intro, "explanation-of-popularity" argument is your fanciful conjecture")</small>

Please note, that ''Muscovite99'' has been blocked twice for 3RR violation in the same article.

Also, about 10 days ago some content removal done by ] was qualified by an administrator as . The administrator ] accordingly (more about the whole Administrator's noticeboard discussion .

Yet twice within 24 hours he again removed the same content
* ;
* ,
even though before second removal ] reminded ''Muscovite99'' twice about the administrator advisory: on talk page and in edit summary.

—] (]) 19:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

:User hasn't reverted in a fair few hours. Also, those diffs are pretty stale themselves. 3RR, generally, relates to 24 hour rv's. ]] 20:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|A People's History of the United States}}. {{3RRV|132.241.178.146}}: Time reported: 22:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

*Diff of 3RR warning:

*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 05:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|Remington 870}}. {{3RRV|Kyle E. Coyote}}: Time reported: 02:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

*Diff of 3RR warning:

This user used an IP address: ] and the account ] as an attempted go-around. I’m reporting both separately to keep from having him revert to IP to vandalize. He admitted as much with in which he also engaged in a personal attack.

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

*] violation on {{Article|Remington 870}}. {{3RRV|72.23.123.63}}: Time reported: 02:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

*Diff of 3RR warning:

This user used an IP address: ] and the account ] as an attempted go-around. I’m reporting both separately to keep from having him revert to IP to vandalize. He admitted as much with in which he also engaged in a personal attack.

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

*] violation on {{Article|Urdu}}. {{3RRV|Deepak D'Souza}}: Time reported: 02:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

*Diff of 3RR warning:

Logging in after a few days, I have found multiple reverts made by this vandal over and over again. Unfortunately, he keeps reverting back to a page created by a vandal with multiple errors on it. The correct page is in need of editing and it has been suggested by other users that edit constructively instead of creating an edit war. I suspect he is monitoring the page to make edits as people reverse the reverts done by vandals to de-construct the page. I have discovered that other users have warned him of this as well, ]. This is very concerning.

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

*] violation on {{Article|Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV|Fovean Author}}: Time reported: 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to:

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

*Diff of 3RR warning: He's been an edit warrior for quite awhile and has had reports filed against him (there's one up above) and several warnings.

This one is a complex reverting, but I'm not going to provide the old version for some of them because the edit summaries on all are the "Undid revision ...." --] <sup>]</sup> 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

==] reported by <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> (Result: )==
*] violation on
{{Article|Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV|Fovean Author}}: Time reported: 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

# <small>(edit summary: "/* State legislature */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 214776206 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 214832744 by ] (])Undue how? It happened and it got Obama his job")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 214834444 by ] (])It ABSOLUTELY matters than a former Weatherman vetted him")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 214840903 by ] (])Neither 'vetted' nor 'got him the job' appear in the article")</small>

User frequently attempts to introduce extraneous material linking bio subject to ], to give ] weight to a prior campaign guilt-by-association tactice. A long serious of prior edits attempted to ] in a different section of the article, on the same topic:

# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 213171020 by ] (])If it isn't, it should be")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 213185598 by ] (])If you want to make changes, get a consensus")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 213644627 by ] (])Absolutely there is consensus on this - you apologists have been trying to undo it")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 213678141 by ] (])Perhaps you missed the giant article on this?")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undo disruptive edits / violation of 3 rr's policy")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 214466996 by ] (])Has nothing to do with campaign and everything to do with bio")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 214711970 by ] (])Let's just leave it as the consensus version while you consider")</small>

—<font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

''Note'': This user seems likely to be a proxy or sockpuppet of ], who was recently blocked on same article for similar edits. This latter account has also reverted to the same "Fovean Author" version in the last 24 hours:

# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Barack_Obama&diff=214839484&oldid=214839051


== 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: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--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.
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

*Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
</pre>

== See also ==

* ] or ]
* &ndash; helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

== See also ==

* ] or ]
* &ndash; helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

Latest revision as of 00:19, 24 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Read the bright read box at WP:3RR (. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Objective3000 So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. Ergzay (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. Ergzay (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. Ergzay (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:3RR: There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. – RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. Ergzay (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
    The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. Ergzay (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording "LMAO, this is as trustworthy as Fox News" followed by "cannot see the pertinence of this" after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. Ergzay (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    What is a CTOP? Ergzay (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    A CTOP is a WP:CTOP. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. Ergzay (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is an incorrect characterization of the discussion. The people you were edit warring with said, correctly, that he was accused of having made what looks like the Nazi salute. As you know from the video and the sources provided, this is objectively correct. You just don't like the fact that reliable sources said this about him. Nobody is trying to put "Elon Musk is a Nazi" in the article. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Based on the comment in response to the notification for this discussion, "I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it", I was quite surprised to see that the editor didn't acquire an understanding of 3RR when previously warned for edit warring in 2020. That's sometime ago granted, but additionally a lack of awareness of CTOP, when there is an edit notice at Musk's page regarding BLP policy, is highly suggestive of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. This in addition to the 3RR warning that was ignored, followed by continuing to revert other editors, and eventually arguing that it must be because I am wrong. If there is an essay based on "Everyone else must be wrong because I'm always right" I'd very much like to read it. As for this report, I primarily wanted to nip the edit war in the bud which appears to have worked for now, given the talk page warning failed to achieve anything. I otherwise remain concerned about the general WP:NOTHERE based indicators; disruptive editing, battleground attitude, and lack of willingness to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner. CNC (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given that some of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that covers all edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with the letter, but not the spirit, of 3RR (In other words, another case of why we can't have nice things)) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    We are likely to see Ergzay at ANI at some point. But as I was thinking of asking for 1RR early today; I'm fine with that decision. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Good decision. I otherwise think a final warning for edit warring is appropriate, given the 3RR violation even excluding BLPREMOVE reverts (first 4 diffs to be specific). There's nothing else to drag out here given Ergzay intends to take a step back from the Musk article, and per above, there is always the ANI route for any future incidents. CNC (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @CommunityNotesContributor My statement that you quoted there is because I'm a divisive person and people often don't like how I act on Misplaced Pages and the edits I make. People have dragged me to this place several times in the past over the years and I've always found it reasonably fair against people who are emotionally involved against dragging me down. That is why I said what I did. And as to the previous warning that you claim was me "not getting it", that was 3 reverts of the same material, and with a name 3RR the association is automatic. Edit: And I'll additionally add, I'm most certainly interested in building an accurate encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources. I'm still very happy to use sources that exist and they should be used whenever possible, but in this modern day and age of heavily politicized and biased media, editors more than ever need to have wide open eyes and use rational thinking. Ergzay (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources" See WP:VNT. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    And WP:KNOW, while you're at it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Use wide open eyes and use rational thinking (as defined by me)" seems to implicate Misplaced Pages:No original research, as well. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:203.115.14.139 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Semi-protected one week; IP range blocked two weeks)

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

    User being reported: 203.115.14.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

    User being reported: 68.150.205.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1271015371 by 68.150.205.46 (talk)"
      2. 08:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1271015536 by 68.150.205.46 (talk)"
      3. 08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1271014641 by 68.150.205.46 (talk)"
    2. 07:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "there is no consensus in talk. there is no government election today that uses your exact Droop. it is not what Droop says his quota was"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ reply to Quantling"
    2. 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit reply to Quantling"
    3. 22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ addition"
    4. 22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit addition"

    Comments:

    User has been edit-warring for the past 9 months to try and reinsert incorrect information into the article, despite repeatedly having had this mistake corrected, and a consensus of 5 separate editors against these changes. Request page ban from Droop quota, Hare quota, electoral quota, and single transferable vote. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Closed Limelike Curves, the user appears to have self-reverted less than an hour after their last edit warring continuation, and 14 hours before your report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks, I missed that (I didn't notice the last edit was a self-revert). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    68.150.205.46, thanks for self-reverting. Can you agree not to re-add the same material until a real consensus is found? An RfC could help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: First edit to change the capitalization

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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