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

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:07, 12 September 2012 view sourceSwarm (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators32,772 edits →User:Future Perfect at Sunrise reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No action for now): nv but editors warned← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:46, 24 January 2025 view source Zinnober9 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers52,994 editsm Wiki-link in external-link syntax error addressed
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{offer help}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}]{{User:MiszaBot/config
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~195~~		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

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

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Xuangzadoo}}
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Tanya Stephens}}, {{pagelinks\|Eminem}}<br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Djjazzyb}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			# {{diff2\|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.)"
	User was edit warring on the ] article, repeatedly adding a logo where a text name should be:
			# {{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.)"
	* 1:
			# {{diff2\|1270039369\|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
	This was removed in line with infobox guidelines, followed by several reverts by ]:
			# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:		# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* 3rd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1270041824\|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
	* 4th revert:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*This was followed by edit-warring on the ] article:
			# {{diff2\|1270040704\|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
	* Initial edit changing surname to Stephenson:
			# {{diff2\|1270045411\|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

			All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	*] explained why the use of the logo was inappropriate:
	*] continued to revert and was warned for edit-warring
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	*He then proceeded to edit-war on the Tanya Stephens article.

			:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several attempts have been made to reason with this edoitor and explain what they are doing wrong: , , ,
			:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - ] (]) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: More reverts , can someone do something? - ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: {{AN3\|p}} I also note the user has been alerted to CTOPS, which I protected the page under, so there will be no room for argument if this behavior continues. ] (]) 23:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' ] <br />
	In the past couple of days I have also had to revert edits by this user such as , , and . --] (]) 22:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Kelvintjy}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
	:How about this: both of you stop reverting each other and discuss these changes. Michig, you have been just as active a participant in these edit wars as Djjazzyb has. Based on the history of ], you could both easily be blocked for edit warring. --] ] 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
	::You should probably acquaint yourself with our policy on biographies of living people - the ] article is a BLP and the removal of reliably sourced information and its replacement with unsourced and poorly sourced information is not something for debate. In the Eminem article I reverted once in line with the guidelines for the template, so how am I edit-warring on that article exactly? --] (]) 22:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:::OK, 1st, Tanya Stephens' real name '''is''' Stephenson, I have provided numerous references, checked the inlays for her CDs, hell I talked to her personally through facebook, it '''cannot''' be disputed. 2nd, The Eminem logo, how come you're not having a go at ]? After he did the same to the ] article, that made me want to do it to some articles to. That said, I have already resolved this matter with ] on the ] page. So, honestly is there any ''real'' problem here? Or are you just finding flaws with nothing at all? That's all I've got to say on the matter for now. I'm out. ] (]) 00:52, 9 September 2012 (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

	:::Michig, BLP tends to focus more on contentious material, especially negative or controversial. While Djjazzyb's version of the article was not very well sourced, I have a very hard time believing that all of the added material was contentious. It certainly did not warrant a war between his edits and the stub. Effort would have been better spent helping look for better sources. --] ] 04:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
	:] has other problems here. ] (]) 00:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\| 24 hours}}. I blocked Djjazzyb because they clearly exceeded 3RR. However, I think there are some competency issues that need to be addressed as well. Michig, your one comment on the article talk page was helpful, but I think more could have been done to educate Djjazzyb. I understand it might not have been successful, but it would have been good to try. Perhaps you can tackle that after the block expires or even leave a note on the editor's talk page during the block.--] (]) 01:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
	::I must say that Djjazzyb's to the block doesn't bode well for the future.--] (]) 01:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::Nor his second. ] (]) 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

	::::Sorry, I suppose I'm the only person to get pissed off and go reckless, right? ] (]) 01:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|FurrySings}}

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

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

			Hello
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	* 1st revert:
			*{{AN3\|s}} ] (]) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 2nd revert:
			*:@] you blocked this user from the page ] in Aug. 2024 for the same reasons. ] (]) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 3rd revert:
			*:You also block Raoul but later unblocked him after he made his appeal. ] (]) 00:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 4th revert:

			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)
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	] has tried to ] ] by removing well-cited material that is unfavorable to ] without a consensus. The user has stated on the article's talk page that he/she will continue to remove this material without a consensus, even though he/she has not proven that this material violates any policy. --] (]) 07:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|nv}} Stale (and no violation even then), no notification of this report.--] (]) 08:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result:no vio) ==
			# {{diff2\|1270885082\|18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Reverting for user specifying basically ] as their reasoning"
			# {{diff2\|1270881666\|18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) I believe you have reverted this edit in error so I am adding it back. Rando tweet from a random organization? The Anti-defamation league is cited elsewhere in this article and this tweet was in the article previously. I simply copy pasted it from a previous edit. ADL is a trusted source in the perennial source list ]"
			# {{diff2\|1270878417\|17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Removing misinformation"
			# {{diff2\|1270875037\|17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
			# {{diff2\|1270724963\|23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Revert, this is not the purpose of the short description"
			# {{diff2\|1270718517\|22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Elon is not a multinational"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Dangerous World Tour}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1270879182\|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small\|(edit: corrected diff)}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Lassoboy}}

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Following a recent altercation, the article is presently identical to the version dated .
			# {{diff2\|1270885380\|18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" {{small\|(edit: added diff, fix date)}}

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Within the last few hours, I issued warnings to and regarding the continuation of the dispute and the possibility of preventative blocks.

			Breach of ] {{small\|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Previous entries at ] and ] suggest that ] did not attempt to resolve the dispute with their counterpart directly prior to reporting at , and demonstrate ]'s presumption of ownership of specific articles, including . Whatever the individual faults of a contributor, I don't believe that anything merits this sort of incivility: 'If you are going to fuck up these articles again, I will write to the moderators and ask them to block you from Misplaced Pages', which establishes the antagonistic nature of the numerous full and partial reversions in the subsequent months.

			] 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)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	After the initial report of edit warring at WP:ANI, I determined that the involvement of ] and ] in the dispute is recent and merits intervention. Their previous encounters suggest a long-standing pattern of reversion and edit warring, especially where ] infringed the ] on multiple occasions during August. ] (]) 11:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC).
			::@] So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. ] (]) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::]: {{tq\|An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.}} – ] (]) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. ] (]) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. ] (]) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::]: {{tq\|There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons}}. – ] (]) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. ] (]) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. ] (]) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
			:The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. ] (]) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. ] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording followed by after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. ] (]) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::What is a CTOP? ] (]) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::A CTOP is a ]. ] (]) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages.}} If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. ] (]) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. ] (]) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This is an incorrect characterization of the discussion. The people you were edit warring with said, correctly, that he was accused of having made what looks like the Nazi salute. As you know from the video and the sources provided, this is objectively correct. You just don't like the fact that reliable sources said this about him. Nobody is trying to put "Elon Musk is a Nazi" in the article. ] (]) 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Based on the comment in response to the notification for this discussion, {{tq\|"I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it"}}, I was quite surprised to see that the editor didn't acquire an understanding of 3RR when in 2020. That's sometime ago granted, but additionally a lack of awareness of CTOP, when there is an edit notice at Musk's page regarding BLP policy, is highly suggestive of ]. This in addition to the 3RR warning that was ignored, followed by continuing to revert other editors, and eventually arguing that it must be because I am wrong. If there is an essay based on "Everyone else must be wrong because I'm always right" I'd very much like to read it. As for this report, I primarily wanted to nip the edit war in the bud which appears to have worked for now, given the talk page warning failed to achieve anything. I otherwise remain concerned about the general ] based indicators; disruptive editing, battleground attitude, and lack of willingness to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner. ] (]) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given that ''some'' of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that covers ''all'' edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with the ''letter'', but not the ''spirit'', of 3RR (In other words, another case of ])) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS. ] (]) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::We are likely to see Ergzay at ANI at some point. But as I was thinking of asking for 1RR early today; I'm fine with that decision. ] (]) 00:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Good decision. I otherwise think a final warning for edit warring is appropriate, given the 3RR violation even excluding BLPREMOVE reverts (first 4 diffs to be specific). There's nothing else to drag out here given Ergzay intends to take a step back from the Musk article, and per above, there is always the ANI route for any future incidents. ] (]) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] My statement that you quoted there is because I'm a divisive person and people often don't like how I act on Misplaced Pages and the edits I make. People have dragged me to this place several times in the past over the years and I've always found it reasonably fair against people who are emotionally involved against dragging me down. That is why I said what I did. And as to the previous warning that you claim was me "not getting it", that was 3 reverts of the same material, and with a name 3RR the association is automatic. Edit: And I'll additionally add, I'm most certainly interested in building an accurate encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources. I'm still very happy to use sources that exist and they should be used whenever possible, but in this modern day and age of heavily politicized and biased media, editors more than ever need to have wide open eyes and use rational thinking. ] (]) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"''Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources''" See ]. ] (]) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::And ], while you're at it. ] (]) 19:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"Use wide open eyes and use rational thinking (as defined by me)" seems to implicate ], as well. ] (]) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected one week; IP range blocked two weeks) ==
	:I am sorry for being so tyrant, but it was at the time necessary, because this user violated this article in my eyes. There have been numerous other edits from other users, but I have agreed with these, because these were constructive edits. So, in overall, I think I have been fair in editing this article. And it was completely impossible to communicate with this user. He/She has never answered to my letters. Period. ] (]) 13:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Paul Cézanne}}
	::I herein admit that I am not the author of this article and not the guard of this article. I am just an editor, who next time will try to be a little bit more polite in my actions. And I hope that J.P.Rallizgard will not do no more unnecessary, meaningless and pointless edits in the future. ] (]) 13:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
	*{{an3\|nv}}; the first three diffs are consecutive, so count as one revert. Same with the last two. The two in the middle also are, but they are from the other editor in the dispute and so wouldn't count for this report anyway. Note to the parties: Do be careful. No blocks are called for now, but continuing this way could result in blocks. Please talk it out and pursue ] as needed. ] ] 11:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|203.115.14.139}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Joan Juliet Buck}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|89.133.214.66}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			# {{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:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1271008376\|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
			# {{diff2\|1271010383\|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Reported user had self-reverted before the report was made) ==
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (personalized comment on the IP's talk page)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Droop quota}}
	<u>Comments:</u> I'm ]. The article has a checkered history replete with BLP issues.--] (]) 20:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)<br />

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|68.150.205.46}}
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Added the 5th revert. The IP is decidely past the bright line, and had been quite properly warned as well. His edit summary of ''Please I have been following this with great interest and you are wrong'' seems to adequately show the problem. Other addresses likely include 91.50.184.173 and 77.241.200.126 as making congruent edits. Seems to be European - and likely a person who travels in Eastern Europe a bit. ] (]) 20:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Added the 6th revert. I seriously doubt that this is a close call at all. ] (]) 21:08, 9 September 2012 (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:'''
	*{{AN3\|b\| 24 hours}}. Clear reverts at 14:18, 14:58, 20:38 and 20:48 at a minimum. Clear warning given at 17:57.] ] 21:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2002 Hebron ambush}}<br />
			# {{diff2\|1270714484\|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ reply to Quantling"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Jokkmokks-Goran}}
			# {{diff2\|1270714531\|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit reply to Quantling"
			# {{diff2\|1270714949\|22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ addition"
			# {{diff2\|1270715070\|22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit addition"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			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)
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert: this is reinserting info that was a few days ago. In fact, we discussed this on the talk page, and a shows only Jokks supports putting it in, while no one else does - there isn't consensus to put it back in. He didn't bother to even comment on the talk page about it...
	* 2nd revert: (reinserts this and other info after I removed it today) and nonsensical revert
	* Article is under ARBPIA, 1RR.

			:{{u\|Closed Limelike Curves}}, the user appears to have self-reverted less than an hour after their last edit warring continuation, and 14 hours before your report. ] (]) 00:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			::Thanks, I missed that (I didn't notice the last edit was a self-revert). ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:68.150.205.46, thanks for self-reverting. Can you agree not to re-add the same material until a real consensus is found? An ] could help. ] (]) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely) ==
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Look at his contributions/user talk page history - he has extensive dealings in the area.
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Tiwana family of Shahpur}} <br />
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - as mentioned above, despite not having consensus to put it back in, he simply ignored the talk page and put it in a few days later, without even commenting on the talk page.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Farshwal}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			# ]
	Activism, I don't think your reason for reverting in the edit summary, "Btselem is POV and can't be used unless mentioned in RS", is valid. See ] (although note the editor there, Stellarkid, is a long term sockpuppeteer who was previously involved in the CAMERA campaign in Misplaced Pages). My understanding is that B'tselem is an RS with attribution, like Human Rights Watch or the IDF. Jokkmokks-Goran seems to be trying to build the article. It is not entirely clear why you aren't helping him. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 20:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
			# ]
	:I'm more than happy with discussing this further on the talk page of that article. Note though that Jokks also reinserted previously removed content for which there was an open discussion on the talk page without any consensus to put it back in, and after I removed it for that reason, reinserted it again, which is really the main reason I'm here. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']]'''</small> 20:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
			# ]
	:This is irrelevant, because it's not a content dispute but rather a clear breach of 1RR.--] (])/] 20:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
			# ]
	::Activism, yes, it would have been better if he didn't do that. He should have continued to discuss it, but you must know that running straight here will reduce your chance of collaboration, which will ultimately damage the article. Shrike, it's not irrelevant that there is a dispute where an editor is unable to build an article based on RS and another editor feels it's necessary to file a 1RR report because they are not getting collaboration on the talk page. We're supposed to build articles but it's becoming increasingly difficult in the topic area. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 21:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

	:::Activism1234 has repeated deleted all information concerning Israeli plans for and actual destruction of Palestinian houses in Hebron. I believe that this is highly relevant for the subject of the article. The material has reliable Israeli sources. He has not given any real reason why it should not be included.

	:::I didn’t notice that this was one of the things Activism1234 deleted. The other things he deleted were new additions to the article that had never been there before and therefore not “reverts” as I understand the term.

	:::He deleted two quotes from a report by B’Tselem on the pretext that it’s not a RS. He then also deleted the source. But this B’Tselem report had been included as a source in the article for a long time, supporting the additional claim that Hebron was subjected to a full six months of curfew.

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
	:::Then he deleted American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee’s reaction to the statements made by Powell and Annan in the “International reactions” section. I see no reason to exclude it. Activism1234 also gave no reason for this deletion.

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] (from User:Farshwal themselves)
	:::Then he changed the term “fighter from Hamas” to “Hamas militant” claiming that the former implied glorification of this person. I don’t think this is a particularly important point. But I believe that “fighter” is more neutral than “militant” and therefore more appropriate in Misplaced Pages.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
	:::I made a rash decision and I am therefore guilty of violating the 1RR rule, at least technically. For that I’m sorry and I promise to be more careful next time. I’m also prepared to take my punishment for this.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	:::It is however apparent that me and Activism1234 cannot solve our differences on our own. He is pushing his political agenda very strongly. I feel Activism1234 does not seriously discuss the issues on the talk page. He repeatedly comes up with his own interpretations of events but never supply any sources backing this interpretation.

			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". — ] ] 09:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::His idea is that any information that he disapproves of, however well-sourced, should stay out of the article until we “reach consensus”. But that will never happen. We need the help of a third party. ] (]) 18:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''': In ] , they are using a slur against the ] caste by calling it "R*put" meaning "Son of Wh*", which is also the caste they are deliberately removing from the article. That in itself merits an indef.] (]) 12:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Blocked indefinitely.--] (]) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: OP indeffed) ==
	::::if it was a rash decision, and you truly regret it, why don't you simply go to that article and undo your last edit? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Bhanot}} <br />
	::::: Maybe I should have but I didn't realize my mistake until I was reported here. By then it would probably be seen as a hypocritical gesture. I am sorry for violating the 1RR rule. But I will continue trying to have the section included in the future. Without violating rules. ] (]) 20:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|DoctorWhoFan91}}
			{{Comment}}Now what should I say, this reckless person has crossed all limits for three revert rule and spamming on user talk with thrustful comments , and he keeps bothering me repeatedly with the same fabricated nonsense. He keeps giving those mocking statements against me for commissioning an report and is persistently stuck on the same matter over and over again. I want him to be punished for his vile actions, and for the offensive things he has said in his statements, which had a bad influence on people. He is going to everyone’s talk pages

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:::::: I think it would actually work in your favor. I've seen a number of these reports closed with no adverse effect on the violator when they simply said "sorry, I've undone my violation and won't do it again". <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	I'd like to note that it's been over a day and Jokks has refused to revert... Apparently doesn't have any interest in doing so, and thus we have an edit of a 1RR violation remaining on the page for over an entire day... --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']]'''</small> 23:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Occupation of Smyrna<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|E4024<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}

	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

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

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

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

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

			:The OP account has been reported to AIV by ] with the suspicion that it's yet another sockpuppet account of User:Truthfindervert: ]. — ] ] 11:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />It started when I added the a link of the relevant peace treaty to the lead of the article. E4024, removed it immediately (1st and 2nd rv), although it was sourced. As a compromise I've added the same information not in the lead but in the main text, but in vain (3rd rv). During the following hours, while I initiated a discussion in the talk page, E4024 performed the 4rth rv (partially reverted a recent addition in another section) and then a 5th rv (again partial revert of a recent addition I've made). In general E4024 displays an aggresive behavior, by reverting (entirely or partially) imediattely any kind of addition made in the article in a variety of sections (typical ]).
			: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)
	For example a proposal I've made in the discussion ] was answered by this ].
			::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. — ] ] 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. — ] ] 11:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned ) ==
	Although he appears to 'battle' alone against various users, (] being advised by another user to reconsider) for an unknown reasons he insist that my edits appear to be vandalim ].

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|United States Board on Geographic Names}} <br />
	E4024, displayed battleground acitivity in the past too ], but it appears, as noted, that he .] (]) 22:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Wamalotpark}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:I am really surprised by this. My many contributions and other interactions show that I am only trying to contribute to the improving of WP. Recalling a case from my very first days in WP is not relevant. In the present claim, the accuser shows that he is not aware of the difference between "edits" and "reverts". I have even corrected his/her spelling mistakes and that edit of mine has been added to my "list of reverts" by the said party. Anybody that will read the discussion page of the relevant article will see that I have been trying to help the user to understand the procedure of international treaty making (the main point of difference between us) but all my efforts were in vain. (His/her attitude may be qualified as "I am not hearing you.") Best regards to all. --] (]) 22:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
			# , using their IP, which is ]
	*I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that this is sanctionable edit warring, rather, it looks like a lot of unrelated content removals. While I'll grant that the 3RR doesn't require all reverts to be the same, I just don't see a case this being edit warring worth sanctioning. Will leave this up in case any other admins want to give a second opinion. ] ] 11:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
			#
	:::Sorry? A partial revert is still a revert. According to the definition of 3rr: "whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or ''different'' material each time—counts as a revert" so, we have clearly a 3rr in this case (5 rvs in less than 12h). Morevoer, there is still extreme wp:own activity and disruption as E4024 insist to .] (]) 13:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*{{AN3\|bb\| 24 hours}}. E4024's comment about a spelling error involves the 5th revert and, in addition, they changed other material at the same time as they corrected the spelling. At the same time, the reporter has also made more than 3 reverts. More important, the battle continues between the two editors as recently as a few hours ago.--] (]) 22:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Again) (Result: 1 wk) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Cognitive behavioral therapy}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Widescreen}}
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:

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

			*Wamalotpark is edit warring with multiple editors across multiple articles, and are making the same edits .-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			*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) ==
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271389468&oldid=1269162140
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Immediately after for the same exact reason, Widescreen has continued edit waring against the consensus without abiding by ]. All the issues were agreed to in and by the editors on the page, Widescreen continues to assert they weren't and continues edit warring without discussing it. ] (]) 23:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
	:This case is also beein discussed . I don't know what to do after CartoonDiablo denial ? . Now it goes about a POV-Button. Is CD allowed to do everything?
	:In fact CDs editing is highley POV and obviously wrong. His only argument is to hide behind Weasel Words and 3RR. Thats insolent and not only by CD! Did it goes about 3RR or well sourced and correct informations? I as author of 3 featured articles in german WP have never seen such a proceed is successful. But in this case it seems so. No discussion but still get supported so he can continue with the proceed. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
	::You reverted ''again''!!! Enough of this. I'm usually opposed to blocks, but not in this case. ] (]) 00:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::Just tell me why you are agains a simple POV-Button? Your only argument is the editwar and it needs 2 useres at the minimum to have an editwar. This hyding after 3rr in this case not violated or WAR, by refusal a discussion AND a POV-Button is the worst violation of the five pillars I have ever seen in WP. And I'm an author since 8 Years. en:wp seems to be a "snitchpedia". --]<sup>]</sup> 00:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::Because there is no POV dispute, that was solved and your problems were explained in it weeks ago. We have both ''repeatedly'' told you that even prior to you being banned. The only person who thinks there is a POV dispute is you. But aside from that, you continue to edit war without abiding by ] and discussing the issue. ] (]) 01:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::How many users did it take to have an POV dispute? Futher, you continue to edit war too. At the last time it was me, rooky violating the 3rr. Luck of the draw. You just spread allegations. Do you think the Admins arn't abele to read and proof the tings your false pretences? --]<sup>]</sup> 04:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::::The question isn't how many, it's the fact that you edit war without abiding by WP:BRD and don't do the actual process for appealing a dispute resolution consensus. I don't know how many times me and Still-standing reverted but you are continuing to revert ''after being banned'' for it. ] (]) 05:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b}} – 1 week for long-term edit warring about cognitive behavioral therapy and psychoanalysis. It was clarified by the last blocking admin that WSC's last block was for warring which included a 3RR violation at ]. Two admins (Bagumba and Swarm) . Amazingly, this dispute has already been through ] which came up with , which WSC still won't accept. (He is concerned about the relative effectiveness of ] and ]. He continues to add POV tags at both articles. As he said at ] on August 30, "I insist, to set one of these POV-warning boxes into the article, till these table is erased.") WSC's block log on the German Misplaced Pages is . In November 2011 he was blocked for six months on de:wp. ] (]) 05:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: 31 hours) ==
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271341767&oldid=1269162140
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271342146&oldid=1271341767
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271342693&oldid=1271342146
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271346369&oldid=1271342693
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271384695&oldid=1271346369
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271389468&oldid=1271384695

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ford Excursion}}

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|65.15.191.184}}

	'''Time reported:''' 03:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC) ''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

	~~1st~~ ~~revert~~ = ~~<small>(edit summary: "")</small>~~		'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271427280&oldid=1271423082

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271423082&oldid=1271392849
	2nd revert = <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 511621155 by ] (])")</small>

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271428457&oldid=1271428288
	3rd revert = <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 511625738 by ] (])")</small>

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

			The article in question presents one-sided information, and that too sometimes using unsourced and questionable sources. The language Urdu is part of the Pakistani identity, and this article does not engage with the perspectives of Pakistanis who argue that the language Urdu has its own identity, distinct from Hindi. It's culturally insensitive to dismiss the cultural identity of another community and dismiss their perspecitives entirely to push one-sided claims that only serve to undermine their identity.
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			*{{AN3\|nv}} ] (]) 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	* These are the identical edits involving the addition of promotion for an aftermarket conversion company and a spam link to it, as done by Martin Blaney. The result was that the user was blocked yesterday:
			::Left CTOPS notice on talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	* The same edits were also performed today and yesterday under the following user names: 174.146.45.181 (once), 174.146.122.245 (twice), 184.234.155.140 (once), 70.233.132.43 (once) - most likely meaning that this is sockpuppetry.
	* Thank you —] (]) 03:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

	Updates (note: copied as they appear in my "local" time):

	4th revert = <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 511634011 by Jim1138 ")</small>

	5th revert = <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 511634011 by Jim1138 ")</small>
	* ] (]) 03:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

	More updates (with my local time)

	6th revert = <small>(edit summary: "(Undid revision 511635332 by Jim1138")</small>

	7th revert = <small>(edit summary: "(Undid revision 511636248 by Jprg1966")</small>
	* Once again, all the edits keep adding the same promotion for "a conversion company (Custom Autos by Tim) in Guthrie, Oklahoma" and the spam EL. ] (]) 04:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
	*It's easier and quicker to use ] for such cases. ] (]) 04:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ayn Rand<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|68.83.5.102<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}

	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	Previous version reverted to: Not applicable. Constantly fluctuates due to edit-warring.

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:
	* 8th revert:

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

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

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Ceaseless edit-warring across multiple articles connected with Rand. IP will not discuss or take no for an answer. Personal attacks as well against other editors. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 04:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
	:Concur, multiple examples of disruptive behaviour, aggressive comments and edit summaries, refusal to use the talk page etc. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
	::To be precise, the IP editor has engaged in discussion on user talk pages. Unfortunately, the "discussion" consists entirely of variations on the IP editor saying, "I'm right so stop your abusive removal of my changes", accompanied by another revert. See the IP's talk page, or , or , or . --] (]) 04:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::Some new meaning of "discussion" I assume ? :-) ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
	*Blocked per the textbook on edit warring. ] (]) 04:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
	*Thank you Drmies. {{user\| Pc1985}} is a sock of the IP and is currently evading the IP block. Reported at AIV but it wouldn't hurt to mention it here as well. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 04:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
	***Looks like {{admin\|Materialscientist}} blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Esh Kodesh}} <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Israeli settlement}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Z554}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|67.6.119.59}} <br />
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	Previous version reverted to: and

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	For Esh Kodesh (note that the page is under 1RR per ARBCOM Arab-Israeli conflict)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert: (this one is by the IP; same edit summary, though)

	Israeli settlement (also under 1RR):
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert: by the IP, same edit summary as above

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

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

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (last of a series of warnings to Z554) and warning to IP.

	<u>Comments:</u> I think it's clear enough that the IP is involved that I'm including it in the report. Note especially use of all CAPS in edit summaries and the fact that the only two articles the IP has edited are the ones that Z554 was edit warring over earlier. I forgot to mention that for good measure, there's canvassing: <br />
	— ] (]) 07:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*Even without the IP edits, the 1RR vio is clear, so 24 hours. ] ] 15:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|MMR vaccine controversy}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ducatidave5}}

	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

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

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

	Comments like , , and did not indicate that the editor was very interested in anything but this one article and constantly make one change to it. We've seen this before with vaccine articles.

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|b\| 24 hours}}. Also blocked for disruptive agenda - see .] (]) 23:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmad Shah Massoud}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}

	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

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

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

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	This report seems malformed. The fourth claimed revert is a revert by Darkness Shines not by FPAS. ] (]) 18:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:Sorry, I am in a bit of pain. Fixed. ] (]) 18:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:{{ec}} In addition Darkness Shines seems to have been tag teaming with JCAla. ] (]) 18:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::The 4th revert is well outside 24 hours, pain or otherwise. What is the point of reports like this? ] (]) 18:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::Er,. the fact that he is edit warring? And refuses point blank to discuss. ] (]) 18:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::And I would not call 53 minutes "well outside2 And do not make accusations of tag teaming. ] (]) 18:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::He is not edit warring. It is your editing and that of JCAla that seems to be the problem here, although I have not looked at the content issue. Please watch out for ]. The first edit was made at 9:13 (am) on 10 September; the 4th was made at 18:53 (pm) on 11 September. Not so hard to see far more than 24 hours between those edits, is it? ] (]) 18:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Look at the time of the last revert. it is 53 minutes from the last revert to the fourth. That is most certainly edit warring. You blithely say my editing is the problem, yet have not looked at the content dispute. Way to go. Shall I go and revert him then? Then I can get blocked for edit warring, after all I am just a pleb here not a super special admin. ] (]) 18:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::The 3RR rule is "no more than 3 reverts within the space of 24 hours". ] (]) 18:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	*I don't see vandalism or BLP violations so FutPerf needs to hit the talk page, where there is a decided lack of discussion going on except a single comment by Darkness Shines/F,nf. Summaries are pretty aggressive, but not over the line. I don't see a need for action at this given time, but had I independently stumbled across the article, I would be tempted to full protect it for a few days and force it onto the talk page, and may yet if it continues. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 18:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::Dennis, he has refused to discuss just wants people banned. ] (]) 18:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	Talk page has been tried; it's hopeless. Trying to talk to JCAla is like talking against a brick wall. I utterly lost patience with him several months ago (and, by extension, with D.S.), so no, I am no longer available for any kind of dispute resolution that involves me having to pretend conducting a rational discussion with these people. Other forms of dispute resolution have failed too, because JCAla has always managed to deflect any outside involvement through the sheer size of his "didnthearthat" rants (the well-known ] approach). JCAla is a hardened, single-minded and extremely obstinate agenda warrior, and trying to negotiate neutrality with him is simply not possible. This is the kind of situation where the Misplaced Pages model of dispute resolution simply fails, radically, and the only solution will be when these two editors will finally get their long-deserved topic bans. Sorry if it's not politically correct to say it like this, but this is the way it is. ] ] 18:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:I'll save you the speech because you've given it more than I have. I still think blocking would be overkill and inappropriate here (it's no secret I'm not a fan of 4RR blocks where the participants are talking) but, well, you know. You can't revert like that. I'm left with not much else you don't already know: take it to the talk page, take it to DRN or MedCab, all things you ''also'' tell others but don't think will work. What else would you propose? There aren't a lot of options here, and you know what they are. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:: As I said, the only rational solution here is to ban the agenda warriors. Anybody with half a brain can see that JCAla's editing on this article has been a persistent, brazen-faced, unrestrained POV campaign; anybody with half a brain who looks at the talk page archives can see that rational discourse with him is impossible. This is blockable, and the situation will persist until some administrator finally does what is needed. Yes, please, spare yourself the admin preaching about dispute resolution; it won't work. ] ] 18:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	*This is a clear-cut content issue in which Fut.Perf. refuses to discuss or build consensus. He is more than clearly edit warring, and I am more than interested to see if people are treated according to the same standards here. Fut.Perf. has been hounding people after disagreements in content disputes. With me it started after an image deletion discussion before which we had never met. Ever since that image deletion discussion, Fut.Perf. has been issuing personal attacks and shown hounding behavior. In that first and initial dispute with him at the image deletion discussion, he was noted by the closing admin for: "S/he must not confuse arguments that are truly invalid with arguments that s/he merely disagrees with." That really captures the main problem here. Ever since Darkness Shines came into contact with Fut.Perf. on the opposing side of an argument, the same happened to him. When DS got a DYK promoted by several established editors reviewing it, Fut.Perf. immediately discredited it including all those that had reviewed it. Now we got that 4RR accompanied by an utter failure to discuss and again disrespectful comments directed towards established editors for disagreement over content. ] (]) 19:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	*FutPerf, I have looked at the article talk page, from your first post to your last , as well as JCAla's contribs. You obviously don't like each other. JC, it isn't as clear cut as you make it, no matter how much you protest. Let me be blunt: I'm worried about Fut.Perf's expressed desire to not work with you, but only as much as I am with some of your tactics that look more like obstructionist wikilawyering than consensus building, with DS along for the ride. Limiting myself to observations on the talk page of this article, none of you are shining examples of collegiate cooperation here. Fut.Perf has tried to work the issues out, including starting a discussion at DRN but both you said your peace and left, and wouldn't address each other. At this point, you need some outside opinions in the matter, and a willingness to accept the consensus of such. An RfC would be one method. Again, there are only so many options here, and I'm interested only in solutions. Drag each other to ANI, RFC/U, start an RfC on the content, ArbCom, whatever, but edit warring, either by individuals or a team of two is not acceptable, previous sanctions or admin bits aside. If you want to consider the long term editing habits of each other, open an RFC/U. Limiting myself to the purpose of '''this''' venue, I don't see a need for action, and I can only hope my guidance isn't falling on deaf ears. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	** Outside opinion? Oh yes, great, please, get us some. RfCs have been tried too. But where do you think that outside opinion is going to come from? Who do you expect is going to read through all that crap on the talkpage in order to even just understand what the dispute is about, let alone formulate a reasoned opinion about it? Have you any idea how many decent contributors we have who have an ongoing interest and a positive track record in this kind of topic domain (internal Afghan politics and history)? I can tell you the answer: it is precisely zero. The only other editors who have ever shown an interest in this article have themselves been no less disruptive agenda warriors than the present set. As for native Afghan editors who might have an editing interest in this field, as far as I'm aware, we don't currently have a single one who is not already indef-banned, or deserves to be. ] ] 21:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	***Again, I really do understand your frustration. I hesitated before jumping in here because it is a difficult to understand and contentious area, but what is the solution? In all sincerity, what am I to do? Ignore it? Block all of you for a combination of warring and tag team warring? Pick a side and just block one or two of you? I'm trying to offer some way forward but it appears my ideas are all bad ones. You know we don't ban anyone at ANEW, so you tell me, how do we move forward? ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 21:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	*{{an3\|nve}} Although 3RR blocks are entirely permitted in "almost" violations where there's 4 reverts in just outside 24 hours (as Darkness Shines has suggested), this is not the case. The 3RR window began at 7:13 September 10 and ended 7:13 September 11. Although there were three reverts in that period, the fourth revert wasn't until 16:53 September 11. You're all experienced users who should know how appropriately work to resolve disputes. Fut.Per., if traditional dispute resolution methods won't work due to a POV-pushing agenda, you have RfC/U and AN/I. JCAla, if this admin is hounding users he doesn't agree with, you have RfC/U and AN. If you can both assume good faith for two seconds, you should already be aware of the normal dispute resolution forums. But spare us the "DR won't work because blah blah blah" routine. You're all experienced enough to know that there is no justification for edit warring—even if you're ''right''. Neither Dennis nor I see the need for admin intervention at this time, but it gets harder not to block when edit warring continues after AN3 has let you off the hook. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 00:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

	==] reported by --] (]) (Result: Final warning issued)==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Joseph Berrios}}

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|HughD}}

	'''Time reported:''' 18:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 511713781 by ] (]) restore deletion of neutral, verifiable, reliable, referenced content; undo section blanking; restore numerous refs")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 511714841 by ] (]) undo disruptive edit, vandalism")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 511715812 by ] (]) vandalism")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted 4 edits by ] (]) identified as ] to last revision by HughD. (])")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 511717705 by ] (]) undo vandalism")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 511718251 by ] (]) undo vandalism")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 511720174 by ] (]) undo blatant vandalism")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 511720819 by ] (]) undo vandalism")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): Move pov to talk page. (])")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted to revision 511726673 by HughD: prep for povdiscussion on talk page. (])")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Chairman, Democratic Party of Cook County, 2007– */ heading format")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* 31st ward Democratic committeeman, 1987–1988, 1992– */ section heading format date range")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "] notability in intro, summary of article contents in intro")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Commissioner on Cook County Board of Review, 1988–2010 */ restore neutral, verifiable, reliable, referenced content related to record of hiring relatives while commissioner and defense of same, including direct quote(s) from subject")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Commissioner on Cook County Board of Review, 1988–2010 */ restore notable, neutral, verifiable content from referenced reliable sources")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Election */ let facts speak for themselves, restore detail, restore quotes, tweak subsection heading")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Illinois State Representative */ restore detail of creation of two Hispanic state legislative districts")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Early life and education */ add significant detail of ancestry from relaible source, already referenced")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Hiring and promoting relatives and friends as Assessor */ add board president statement and reference to neutral, verifiable, reliabel source")</small>

	* Diff of warning:

	* '''Comment'''. Editor appears to be at approximately 12RR in 36 hours, despite a warning on his talk page (linked above) at about 9RR, and appears to have no intention of stopping. (I've tried to remove the less relevant edits from the above list, but the original was very long indeed.) The IP against whom he was ''mostly'' edit-warring, has already been blocked. The IP in question was removing content apparently based on a belief (right or wrong) that it infringed BLP. Under sporadic discussion at the article's talk page and ]. I have not edited the article.
	—--] (]) 18:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	*'''Note''' The IP was doing major whitewashing of the article, removing well sourced but negative material. I think the "BLP violation" by the IP is overstated a bit, as the edits show more a desire to cleanse the article rather than trim specific points. I would hate to see HughD blocked for what amounts to protecting the integrity of the article, even if he was doing it in the worst possible way. Even ClueBot reverted the IP on these cuts, showing how drastic the changes were. While this is clearly beyond any reasonable amount of reverts you would expect, the BLPN shows the contentiousness of the situation, as well as the obvious bias of the IP warrior. In a perfect world, HughD would come here and explain that he understands he was way over the line, and reassure it won't happen again. His motives may be good but we still can't tolerate that kind of behavior, even if he is right. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 18:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	*::Hello. I was attempting to protect the integrity of the article. I requested the IP block but continued warring while waiting for the block to take effect, I recognize I should have waited for the block to take effect. Sorry. ] (]) 19:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	*::WRT ] the subject of the article is a Cook County politician and the IP maps to their HQ building during regular hours. I seriously doubt the IP was the subject himself but I suspect a surrogate ], in any case no excuse for my warring. ] (]) 19:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	*:Dennis, just one simple question. Was the material that the IP removed (and that HughD repeatedly reverted back into the article), "all OK" from a ] perspective? --] (]) 18:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	*::That is what WP:BLPN is for. All I can do when looking at a dispute, personally, is look at the motivations and intent. It is certainly contentious material, but it appears to be well sourced. Arguably, the controversy and negative material is what makes the subject notable. He isn't an elected official, after all. My concern isn't about what should or shouldn't be in the article, it is finding a solution that will stop warring so actual discussion can take place, and so review and a consensus can take place. Often, a block is the right answer, but in this case I think it would be counter productive and make the situation worse, rather than better. HughD has been here for years without a block, so warring doesn't appear to be a habit. Since I have no interest in ], and only in solutions, I'm very tempted to just full protect for a while. Keep in mind, I don't normally work AN3 and will admit an ignorance as to the typical response by admins here, all I can do is use my best judgement in a given situation. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 19:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	*:::thanks. BTW the subject of the article IS an elected official. ] (]) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' -- ] may apply here. --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 18:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	**Meh, it might apply to the IP, who was blocked and it has expired. The IP is an official Cook County IP, so someone is doing this at work for the county/city government. This is another situation where I'm inclined to thing full article protection and a force to the talk page is more effective than a series of blocks. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 19:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	*Note, the article has had peer review , and a look at the contribs makes it appear ] may be related. Again, none of this changes the bad judgement by HughD in reverting so much, but I still don't think blocking is the optimal solution. HughD needs to be given a chance to explain himself first. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	::::Before page protection, you may want to take a look at ] and check in with ], who has been making extensive changes to the article since the problem was reported to WP:BPLN yesterday. She's sort of Misplaced Pages's BLP-fixer extraordinaire. --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 19:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::well now, how could i know that?? ] (]) 23:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::This is the diff between the version peer-reviewed in January and the version disputed yesterday:
	:::::--<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Part of my concern is that it has been semi-protected, which is a bit ham-fisted for a two sided dispute when one of them is an IP. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 19:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::I agree, thanks for your comment. But now may I suggest we get back to semi, thanks. ] (]) 20:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	*"I should have waited for my opponent to be blocked" is '''not''' what we want to hear! If I find myself at 2RR, much less 3RR, I ''think very hard'' about what to do next. That's even if I believe the other editor is breaching WP:BLP every step of the way. In this case, there is ''no such excuse''. HughD carried on past 4RR, past 5RR, past 9RR or wherever he is now, with absolutely no excuse at all. "The IP is associated with the subject" is not something I've ''ever'' seen used as an excuse for edit warring. --] (]) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::uh, i think i said "no excuse" ] (]) 21:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	::Two comments:
	::*We routinely go past 3r when dealing with blatant vandalism or spamming. BLPs are in a special category, however.
	::*I'm not sure what the typical outcomes are for discussions here, but I would hope it would not include a block for HughD. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. While I disagree with HughD's introduction of bias into the article (especially the lede) and his dealings with this IP, on the whole he is a prolific, valuable contributor on Misplaced Pages.
	::--<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 19:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	::::I don't think my semi-protection of the article was "ham-fisted". I trimmed out the disputed sections, opened an entry at WP:BLPN, semi-protected the article and invited the IP to participate in the discussion there. My deletion of the disputed material was a temporary step to defuse to crisis, not a judgement on its merits; an experienced editor, Orlady, is now slowly reconstituting a more neutral version. I suggest leaving the article semi-protected and letting IPs express themselves on the talk page. I suspect our new version of the article may not necessarily please its subject; he just won't have very good grounds to object.
	::::--<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 19:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::"I suggest leaving the article semi-protected and letting IPs express themselves on the talk page." Thanks for the semi. It's all we need here, folks. Really. I will work with all editors including our IP in the finest wp fashion. ] (]) 20:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:: After being alerted to the BLP situation, I spent a lot of time working on this article to remove and/or rewrite content that I perceived to have egregious BLP issues, as well as some content that seemed at most peripherally relevant to this bio. Apparently, HughD disagreed with my changes, as he has . These are not subtle BLP problems; for example, although this is an article about a current elective officeholder who has not (AFAICT) been convicted of a crime, HughD's latest version of the ] (which is actually milder than some earlier versions) states as a matter of fact that he has engaged in a number of illegal activities: "Berrios hired relatives and friends to government jobs under his control, complemented elected office with a private lobbying practice, used ballot access law to political advantage, and vigorously defended accepting campaign contributions from those doing business with his elected office". I don't have time to deal with this right now (I'm late for a meeting), but I recommend that someone revert the page to my last edit, full-protect the article, and unblock the IP so that they can participate in talk-page discussion. (And, FWIW, I didn't finish cleaning up the BLP problems in the article, but I think I made a lot of good progress.) --] (]) 19:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::Hi. Thanks for your edits. The intro makes no reference to illegal activities. As per MOS the intro summarizes aspects of notability. The activities mentioned in the intro are facts manifest in multiple RS. Further, the subject of the article has been very outspoken in rs in defense of those activities and so he or his surrogates should not have any problem with that lede. Thanks again. ] (]) 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	*Dennis, would you like to undertake not to get involved in this article's topic, and discussion of other's role in it, any further? --] (]) 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::may I ask, why you have asked one wikipedian to not participate in this discussion? ] (]) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::Because I respect his judgement. --] (]) 20:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::I don't understand your reply. ] (]) 20:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	HughD, would you agree that edit-warring in this way is never* acceptable, that you will never edit-war in this way again, whether you view the other party's actions as "whitewashing" or not, whether you view the allegations as "well sourced" or not? Further, will you agree not to edit this specific article again? --] (]) 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::Yes. Yes. I'm proud of my contributions to this article and I intend to continue to work on it. ] (]) 20:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::I have reverted our ] article back to Orlady's last version and asked that Hugh make no further edits to the article without getting consensus from multiple, established editors. --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 19:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::"Orlady's last version" That version omits about 1/3 of the refs. That version is non-neutral in that it gives the subject a pass on hiring of relatives and friends and controversial political campaign fundraising activities as commissioner, both of which issues predominate rs on this subject. That version violates ] to the extent ] exhorts us to give the same or similar weight in the article as coverage in RS. ] (]) 20:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	::::Another administrator has now fully protected the article. --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 19:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::There we go, was side tracked at SPI, but full was the correct answer here. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 20:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Since the article is now fully protected, this report should be closed. A warning to HughD would be apropos. Though the material that HughD is adding has some chance of being technically correct, his repeated additions have the effect of creating a article that reads like an attack piece. If protection were not already in place I would recommend a block of HughD because his actions regarding a BLP could be seen as reckless. The 3RR exemption works only for removal of material that could be seen as defamatory. It doesn't excuse HughD for repeatedly restoring possibly-correct negative material whose status needs review, and breaking the 3RR limit while doing so. HughD's responses here are disappointing. ] (]) 21:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	:::::::Hugh, if you don't like the fully protected article as it is now, I encourage you to get busy at ] building consensus for each of your proposed edits. That's the way we're supposed to work on contentious articles.

	:::::::Ed, I concur with your assessment and recommendations. --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::may I ask, what are Orlady's or Reaper's burden to role model concensus building? to me they look like editors being bold ] (]) 23:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::I was expecting a more conciliatory tone as well, particularly considering the generosity and good faith dish out by the shovel full here. We all get "one", how we use it is up to each of us, I suppose. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 21:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	::::::::Hi Dennis! Please always assume good faith of everyone else involved. It can be tough! --] (]) 21:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::*As far as warnings go, I believe I have explained the situation adequately on HugeD's talk page. If warring resumes after protection is lifted, I don't think a discussion will be required to determine if a block is justified. Closing is proper at this point, as per Ed. And Demiurge, I'm pretty sure I brought bucketloads of good faith here today. But remember, that good faith isn't a suicide pact. I'm not sure how I could have possibly given any more good faith than my discussion here. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 21:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::*You've brought a great deal of disappointment, that's clear. I guess this is over. --] (]) 22:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

	== User:Bbb23 ==

	Has repeatably removed large sections of Joan Juliet Buck article with from what I can see no justification despite repeated warnings by both editors and administrators.
	] (]) 23:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:This seems to be a tag-team edit war involving ], ], ], ], and ]. Par for the course. Should be locked and forced into dispute resolution. —] 23:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	*Well, one side is right and the other is wrong. I've locked the article down, wrong version or not. Now, anyone who knows our BLP policy can tell that Manbumper and the IP are wrong, and anyone who's looked at ANI recently knows why Kerfuffler is getting involved with this. I'll leave it to someone else to sort this out, and tease out its consequences. ] (]) 23:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::Please honestly check the history please it is much more then me and the IP.
	] (]) 23:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	:*{{ec}} I appreciate the lock. I'm not sure why the article is such a headache. As a point of protocol, if this had been about anyone but me, I would have removed the "report" as at a minimum malformed. I feel like we're at ANI, not at ANEW.--] (]) 23:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
	::*Sure thing. Some kind and independent admin will come by and take care of this, no doubt. I see that IP 89 is blocked, and I foresee a learning curve for Manbumper. Bbb, I'm letting someone else really do the honors, given Kerfuffler's involvement, and my recent kerfuffle with them, and etc. etc. Let's see what happens; a good reader of Paradise Lost knows that evil sometimes brings forth good. ] (]) 23:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:46, 24 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

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:

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.)"
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.)"
16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
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"."
11:55, 14 January 2025 11:55 "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
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:

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)

Stale Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bbb23 you blocked this user from the page Soka Gakkai in Aug. 2024 for the same reasons. Raoul mishima (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You also block Raoul but later unblocked him after he made his appeal. Kelvintjy (talk) 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 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)

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:

18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270884092 by RodRabelo7 (talk) Reverting for user specifying basically WP:IDONTLIKETHIS as their reasoning"
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"
17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270877579 by EF5 (talk) Removing misinformation"
17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270854942 by Citing (talk) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Revert, this is not the purpose of the short description"
22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270715109 by Fakescientist8000 (talk) Elon is not a multinational"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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:

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)

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:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is straight-up vandalism. BusterD semi-protected the article for one week, and I've blocked Special:contributions/203.115.14.0/24 for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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:

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)"
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:

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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)

Comment: In Special:Diff/1271043038 , they are using a slur against the Rajput 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.ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 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)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Tested account; almost certainly a sock but even if they aren't, they're being wildly disruptive and attacking others. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 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 )

Previous version reverted to: First edit to change the capitalization

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First revert, using their IP, which is very obviously the same editor
Second revert
Third revert
Fourth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

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

No violation Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Categories: