Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:23, 13 May 2014 view sourceMusikAnimal (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Administrators120,568 edits →User:Gembres reported by User:Gyrofrog (Result: ): blocked for 24 hours← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:51, 23 January 2025 view source Closed Limelike Curves (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,187 edits →User:68.150.205.46 reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: Reported user had self-reverted before the report was made): ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
{{no admin backlog}}
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/Header}}]
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 244 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Zeitgeist Movement}}, {{pagelinks|Zeitgeist: The Movie}}, {{pagelinks|Zeitgeist: Addendum}} and {{pagelinks|Zeitgeist: Moving Forward}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Earl King Jr.}}


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


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- 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|1270040704|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|1270045411|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"
#
#
#
#
#


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


All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 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: A previous lengthy discussion -- Recent addition


:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
<u>Comments:</u> This user's battleground behavior has been going on for awhile now. He is currently edit-warring over multiple articles. Largely a single topic editor he clearly doesn't understand how ] works. Another editor, ], has provided numerous diffs regarding this user's disruptive behavior. --- It's likely that Earl will come here and present a lengthy "defense", but this has been going on for too long. Please assist. -- ] (]) 10:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:: You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - ] (]) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:: More reverts , can someone do something? - ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::: {{AN3|p}} I also note the user has been alerted to CTOPS, which I protected the page under, so there will be no room for argument if this behavior continues. ] (]) 23:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:The Zeitgeist article is problematic and controversial because of the many sympathizers it brings to the page. The editor making the complaint is one of those. I have done my best to get the article neutral. I have not violated the three revert rule ever to my knowledge despite what the above says. I may have reverted a couple of things twice in 24 hours thinking others might back that through consensus and sometimes they did. I am not a single topic editor. ] (]) 13:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <br />
::I'd add to that that I have come to the conclusion that Earl King Jr.'s entire behaviour regarding the Zeitgeist-related articles has become so problematic that I think a topic ban may be necessary. He has been using the TZM talk page a a forum for half-baked conspiracy theories, making personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him, and editing in a manner entirely inconsistent with NPOV and RS policy - he is clearly ''not'' 'neutral' regarding TZM, as recent posts by him on the talk page make clear. Anyone involved with these articles will be aware that it can be difficult at times dealing with the relentless attempts by TZM supporters to spin the articles their way, but the way to deal with it is by making clear that content needs to be based on on-topic sourcing and strict adherence to policy, rather than by engaging in synthesis and turning articles into attack pieces based on conjecture. ] (]) 13:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GiggaHigga127}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
:::There has been plenty of edit warring to go around. There is now some active discussion about merging all this junk into one cesspool....my honest take is the movement is a hoax...created by just another charlatan and giving space to this crap is not in our remit. Let's see if Earl can cease edit warring and also if Nagualdesign can cease calling him "Zionist" which is absolute bullshit.--] 14:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:::I agree that a topic ban may be necessary. This message board posting is '''not about whether you agree or disagree with the article topic,''' it's about an editor's disruptive behavior which has not only been cited in this complaint but ongoing for too long. And yes, he is largely a single topic editor, who has recently blanked his talk page from this unresolved dispute. -- ] (]) 19:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
::::Both SomeDifferentStuff and Andy are extremely aggressive editors. I have not edit warred by continual reverting after consensus. I have not broken the three revert guideline to my knowledge. I do not take the bait when those two provoke which they do on the ] article talk page. I discussed the other article pages by opening a thread on the Zeitgeist movement page about redirecting those articles. SomedifferentStuff for whatever reason has edited with the ''in-plants'' from the Zeitgeist movement. I have no ownership issues with the article, though it is mostly myself that rewrote it from the mess it was previously. I have no agenda beyond presenting the information neutrally. I have created a couple of articles on Misplaced Pages that have zero to do with this topic and my watch list is well rounded. I edit the related Zeitgeist articles a lot because there are constantly issues there and I appreciate other people that are trying to keep the article from being an advert. I would note again that SomeDifferentStuff has been overtly aggressive and accusatory on the talk page and I believe trying to provoke a personal battle, which I have not done. Example above SomedifferentStuff is accusing me of ''blanking'' my talk page. No, I just removed his message which is a way to tell someone I got the message. But, it is an inflammatory rhetorical way to present me so he did it. Andy also has never edited the article beyond making reverts and using extremely caustic, provocative, maybe nasty language on the talk page to make his points. His block history makes it clear as does SomeDifferentStuff's that they are familiar with issues related to problematic editing. I have not taken the bait from Andy on the talk page either. ] (]) 23:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
# – same
:::::"SomedifferentStuff for whatever reason has edited with the ''in-plants'' from the Zeitgeist movement". I have no idea what an'' 'in-plant' ''is supposed to mean, but it clearly isn't a complementary way to describe a contributor. And it should be noted that Earl King Jr. also seems to think that the TZM article talk page is an appropriate place to describe members as "brainwashed" , and to accuse Peter Joseph, the founder, of using "neuro linguistic programming and meme control". None of this has anything whatsoever to do with article content (and is arguably a WP:BLP violation), and accordingly has no place on the article talk page - but Earl's response to me asking him not to use the talk page as a forum has been to carry on regardless. As for the issue with redirects, it should be noted that Earl made no effort whatsoever to indicate on the talk pages of the articles being redirected that there was a discussion going on - instead he simply claimed that there was 'a consensus' for this, and attacked anyone who disagreed. Clearly Earl isn't the only one causing problems - neither he nor ] should be using edit summaries for personal attacks as seen here, but it seems to me that it is Earl that is provoking this, with his repeated talk-page posturing and refusal to take disagreements regarding article content as anything but evidence for some sort of improper pro-TZM agenda. Maintaining reasonable policy-compliant coverage of this topic requires patience, and a commitment to ensuring that policy is complied with - and not just the policies that prevent TZM members turning the article into a puff-piece as many would clearly like. It needs a commitment from ''all'' contributors to maintain neutrality by working strictly from sources, and avoiding the sort of synthesis that Earl has been engaging in lately in his efforts to promote what amounts to a conspiracy theory - that Peter Joseph founded the whole thing as a money-making scheme for personal profit. If Earl wants to promote this theory, he should find some other place to do so. ] (]) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
# – same
# – same
# – same, now with PA


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::::::Andy I am referring to the meat and sock puppets in the article. There is a long and huge history of that. Also you present me as promoting conspiracy theory. I have discussed the article and the article is in the ''conspiracy theory'' category on Misplaced Pages. Also what you are saying about Joseph is a real stretch and any appraisal I may have done about him is not the way you 'paraphrased' it. Your caustic approach to people you disagree with and your rephrasing to put things in a darker light, and saying I am promoting a theory on the talk page is unwise. Also saying that I provoked the editor into him calling me Earl 'Zionist Agenda' King Jr. is kind of ridiculous. I respect a lot of your work though I do not like your caustic approach but I think you have gone too far, if this is what you are saying. ] (]) 01:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::It is a simple verifiable fact that you posted accusations of "brainwashing" and nonsense about "neuro linguistic programming" (which incidentally is ]) and "meme control" (whatever that is supposed to mean) on the talk page - and you have repeatedly argued that Peter Joseph concocted TZM for personal gain. That is self-evidently a conspiracy theory. Such comments have no place on an article talk page, and can only ever be seen as provocative. Misplaced Pages articles are based on published reliable sources, and your personal opinions of TZM should have no bearing on article content - yet you have repeatedly argued for inclusion of content not sourced to material directly discussing TZM on the basis that it fits in with your personal theory. . That is not the action of a neutral contributor. ] (]) 02:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::The article as said Andy is in the Conspiracy Theory category of articles so its doubtful that things about that would not come up on the talk page. Again you are paraphrasing very poorly your interpretation of anything I wrote for ''effect'' here. Also you did not respond to what I said. You said that the editor that called me 'Earl Zionist Agenda King Jr.' in his edit summary was not guilty of anything because I may have provoked him. That is ridiculous. Saying a racial/ethnic slur here is justified? No. ] (]) 05:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::The fact that the article has been placed in a 'Conspiracy Theory' category is of no relevance whatsoever - you are promoting ''your own conspiracy theory'' on the talk page. As for your suggestion that I stated that Nagualdesign "was not guilty of anything", that is an outright lie, as everyone can plainly see. Frankly, I am beginning to have serious doubts as to your present competence to be editing Misplaced Pages at all - your posts are becoming increasingly irrational. ] (]) 05:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Really? You said above that I provoked the other editor into it. One of your posts above says: ''User:Nagualdesign should be using edit summaries for personal attacks as seen here, but it seems to me that it is Earl that is provoking this, with his repeated talk-page posturing and refusal to take disagreements regarding article content as anything but evidence for some sort of improper pro-TZM agenda. Maintaining reasonable policy-compliant coverage of this topic requires patience, and a commitment to ensuring that policy is complied with - and not just the policies that prevent TZM members turning the article into a puff-piece as many would clearly like.'' End quote Andy from a couple of paragraphs up, it shows that user calling me ''Earl King "zionist agenda" Jr.'' The editor that called me a ''zionist agenda'' I never had noticed before, but warned him on his talk page. Andy's comment here was that I provoked it. That is clear. I think this is way off base. Also listening to Andy going into paroxysms of rage over his conceptions is getting old. I find him contentious most of the time like this example. ] (]) 07:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yup. I said your behaviour was provocative - it was. I didn't say that Nagualdesign wasn't guilty of anything. He clearly shouldn't have made the comment he did. You always had the option of reporting his comment - instead you responded in kind, further inflaming the situation. As for "paroxysms of rage", it is you that is exhibiting irrational behaviour clearly driven by emotions, not me. ] (]) 16:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
There is a discussion in progress about how best to arrange the pages about the Zeitgeist movie and their related "movement." These pages have been difficult for some time, as single-purpose accounts and promoters of the movement and its conspiracy theories have tried to use the page as a promotional platform to present their views, repetitively and at length across multiple articles. It's hard for me to see that Earl King Jr. is the problem. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
:Tom, this complaint is not about how Earl deals with IP's coming to the page. It's about his battleground behavior and blatant disregard for ] when interacting with established Misplaced Pages editors. It's unacceptable. -- ] (]) 12:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
:That doesn't really characterize the situation as I see it. The idea that Earl is the problem isn't supported by the links presented, or by the discussion just above for that matter. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
::? We must be looking at different links. The ones I provided above clearly show edit warring over multiple articles and disregard for ]. Equally important is that this battleground behavior is not new. On top of that it appears this complaint may be past its due date '''even with this mess of evidence over 3 different articles''' . -- ] (]) 17:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
:::You may be laying it on a little too thick S.D.S. considering you were blocked for editing warring and tendentious editing previously on these articles I warned you as did some others on your talk page at the time prior to your being blocked. I hope your current report is not revenge related. I know that is in the past but your current over the top 'complete with capital letters type of 'yelling' is getting old. ] (]) 00:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
I've added the other article pagelinks to the top of this section. Sorry if this is inappropriate, but since my own interactions with Earl have been mostly limited to ] I thought it worth linking. More importantly, if Earl needs a holiday then it should be from all 4 pages. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.3em; letter-spacing:-0.07em;">]]</span>''' 01:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
User:GiggaHigga127 insists on adding the ] and ] divisions to Conor Benn's infobox. Our style guide at WikiProject Boxing, ], says to only include weight classes in which a boxer has ''notably'' competed, that being usually for regional/minor/world titles. In Benn's case, that division was ] for almost the entirety of his career, and he did indeed hold a regional title in that division. In 2023 he was given a lengthy ban from the sport, from which he recently returned in a pair of throwaway fights within the light middleweight limit, against non-notable opposition and with no titles at stake. Per the style guide, those throwaway fights are not important enough to warrant the inclusion of light middleweight in the infobox, at least until he begins competing there regularly.
:You never did apologize or refute making a racial/ethnic slur to me on the article edit summary nagualdesign. Just what is my 'Zionist Agenda' to your mind? You are an example of negative participation on the article by people with an agenda. That comment deserved censure. You used it in two edit summaries and instead of reporting you I warned you on your talk page ] which you mocked. ] (]) 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
::I certainly did refute making a racial/ethnic slur as I resent the accusation. I didn't apologize because I don't feel it necessary, as I didn't use any pejorative terms. And although ''Zionist'' is arguably the wrong adjective to describe your apparent agenda, I do believe you are staunchly.. how shall I put it.. anti-Zeitgeist? anti-anti-Semitic? pro-Jewish? These are descriptive terms, not rude words! Of course you are more than entitled to your own world view, but in my original edit summary (the one that offended you so very deeply) I was simply trying to point out that such conflicts of interest are contrary to WP guidelines, hence the link to ]. Of course you already know all this, but thank you for the opportunity to clarify things for the casual observer. If you'd like to take that further then take it to ANI. This section is about you, not me. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.3em; letter-spacing:-0.07em;">]]</span>''' 16:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
:::No, this is about the big picture and anyone that comes here is under scrutiny. Your statement above ''What I am against is the constant erosion of these articles by Earl King Jr. and co. who seem intent on undermining the perceived "anti-Semitic" message of these films by souring the articles.'' The fact that you refer to me as Earl Zionist agenda' King Jr.' is pretty damning and that you did that just recently in the history of the article. When you say, ''I do believe you are staunchly.. how shall I put it.. anti-Zeitgeist? anti-anti-Semitic? pro-Jewish? These are descriptive terms, not rude words'' end quote. Not sure what those statements you are making mean except that your interpretation seems disconnected to anything I have done. How is it that you think I am pro Jewish, or that you think I edit across these articles that way. What does anti-anti Semitic mean and what group are you referring to by 'Semitic' Arabs or Jews? Anyway your attitude does not make a lot of sense to me. ] (]) 22:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
::::Umm.. Perhaps you should write and ask Michelle Goldberg what ''Semitic'' means. Isn't she the reliable source who says that ''Zeitgeist: The Movie'' is "covertly anti-Semitic"? Surely you must remember, Earl, you made great efforts to have it included in the article lead. And that's why these films don't 'deserve' to have articles on Misplaced Pages, right? ..Anyway, let's not stray off topic. Like I said, take it to ANI if you wish. ''*yawn*'' '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.3em; letter-spacing:-0.07em;">]]</span>''' 00:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::I fail to see how you equate me with having a 'Zionist agenda'. I don't think what you are saying makes a lot of sense from any perspective. I still do not have much of a clue about your ideas except it sounds like conspiracy thinking as you referred previously to myself and others as maintaining a ''stance''. You are complaining about ] a journalist from a notable newspaper that has been cited on some article information, and you have no problem saying that I am a Zionist agenda editor. That journalist was discussed at length on the talk page and checked out and passed notability tests elsewhere. ] (]) 06:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::I'm complaining about Michelle Goldberg now, am I? That's news to me. If any uninvolved administrators wish to ask me sensible questions relevant to this complaint about Earl I'd be happy to help. As for silly questions (red herrings, really) like asking whether ''Semitic'' refers to Arabs or Jews, or implying that I said something then expecting me to defend myself, I have no interest in that. I won't be responding directly to any more of Earl's bullshit. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.3em; letter-spacing:-0.07em;">]]</span>''' 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


As far as middleweight goes, Benn has ''never competed anywhere close to that weight class''. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, ] and ] should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had ] regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. ] would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. ] (]) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Less than a year ago SomeDifferentStuff was found in violation of editing guidelines on the article in question It was shown that he violated the 3 revert guideline. I have not violated the three revert guideline to my knowledge and opened a thread to discuss putting the movies into the Zeitgeist Movement article. I do not think I have ''gamed the system'' either When S.d.s. was blocked he was given this message by an Admin. '' You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours''' for your ] caused by ] and violation of the ].'' For what ever reason these Zeitgeist related things cause great consternation among the followers or sympathizers and others. I have tried to be a neutral editor on related articles. ] (]) 23:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
:It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. ] (]) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:Earl, using a distraction tactic can be useful but I would encourage you otherwise. I was previously blocked because I exercised poor editing behavior, which '''I take full responsibility for.''' -- Even with the evidence against you, it is unlikely that it will result in a block this time, but I encourage you not to take that as a green light to continue your disruptive battleground behavior. This noticeboard complaint will soon be part of the historical record, accessible for future use if need be. -- I will not post here further. -- ] (]) 10:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
::Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Based on , it could be ] as well. ] (]) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --] (]) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Of course you stand by the revision. You show up less than 12 hours after Gigga gets blocked, and perform the exact same revert. Dodgy. ] (]) 19:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tübingen School}}
Earl continues on his warpath. I don't think he's taking this complaint very seriously, and thinks he can abide by the letter of the law but flaunt the spirit of the law, so to speak, and he'll get away with it. He thinks he knows just how far he can push. The problem is he's ''always pushing''. Do you see? Can we wrap this up please? '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.3em; letter-spacing:-0.07em;">]]</span>''' 04:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xpander1}}
:So you think I am like an Indian on the warpath, because I supported another persons edit. You also think I have a Zionist agenda. You think I am 'pushy' and keep on pushing, and you have told me on the talk page of 'Zeitgeist movement' to stop editing and move along. Anything else you want to get off your chest? I fail to see that you are making any serious conversation about anything here. A couple of paragraphs up you said ''I won't be responding directly to any more of Earl's bullshit.'', but you just keep coming back here insulting and baiting. ] (]) 13:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
===More of the same===
This user is continuing to edit war. Here is a fresh revert from today without consensus and with zero discussion on the article's talk page. - He still hasn't grasped the concept that edit warring <u>'''is not justifiable under any circumstances</u>.''' -- ] (]) 15:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:I thought you said a couple paragraphs above that you were through posting here. So far its established that you were definitely blocked previously from editing the article for edit warring and disrupting Misplaced Pages and violating three revert and that was not that long ago and I was one of the people that warned you at the time on your talk page. Also I did not edit war. I made one edit a day ago. I affirmed someone elses edit, Bobrayner's an experienced Misplaced Pages editor with a good reputation if I can say so. Also there is a discussion on the talk pages now of those articles. Even if you underline your message and '''embolden''' it, if it is not true, it does not really matter, no matter how you 'market' that idea. ] (]) 22:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270585353|07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Self-reverting as per ]"
# {{diff2|1270579742|06:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270517034 by ] (]): Please see the redirect page for adding new edits"
# {{diff2|1270517034|22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270516481 by ] (]): Please avoid making an edit war, I asked you nicely"
# {{diff2|1270516481|22:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1270515748|22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270489731 by ] (]): Please add the new sources to ] Best."
# {{diff|oldid=1270482917|diff=1270489731|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1270484281|19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) other editors simply continued my original work, which I respect"
## {{diff2|1270489731|19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Redirecting page the newly created page"
# {{diff2|1270482597|19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Reverting my own edit to contest page creation attribution"
# {{diff2|1270267829|19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::There is "a discussion on the talk pages now of those articles" (or more accurately, a note pointing out that there is a discussion taking place elsewhere) because another contributor added it. You restored the undiscussed redirect before any such notification of the discussion had taken place. Why? What is the urgency here? Why are you so keen to redirect the articles, and so keen to avoid participation in discussions from people who have been involved in their creation? ] (]) 22:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270589185|07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
:::Not. Those articles originated generally by groups of Zeitgeist supporters and were not neutral nor was the Zeitgeist Movement page for a long time. Mostly they are all marginally o.k. now, because they have been reedited by neutral editors and changed from advert copy paste things, but the question is if they are overkill and not needed except maybe the first movie one, Zeitgeist the Movie. That is the flow of current discussion. Manipulating language to sound harsh is not really advisable. You have done about zero in a positive sense Andy. You contribute zero to the articles just hit the undo button now and then and make your scathing comments. You could have added discussions at those talk pages at any time, instead you have harped over and over that someone should. Your summary here is also wrong. The redirects have been discussed now in edit summaries on the article pages and on the Zeitgeist movement page and now on the pages of the articles. It does not matter who created the articles either because here we are all volunteer grunt workers. Editing on Misplaced Pages is an existential exercise and the articles have no intrinsic value unless they pass muster in the here and now, which according to the marginal consensus on the Zeitgeist movement page, they do not. I supported Bobrayner's edit after the fact, because he supported the redirect and that right now is the consensus more or less on the talk page by neutral editors. ] (]) 23:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
::::So basically you are saying that you alone get to decide who is a 'neutral' contributor, deserving of notification regarding this issue - in spite of the ample evidence already provided that you have let your own anti-TZM feelings, and insistence that you 'own' the article influence your editing behaviour. Well tough - Misplaced Pages doesn't work like that. ] (]) 23:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::You can flame and bait from now till the cows come home. Assuming I hate Zeitgeist is wrong. You assume too much. As said you are contentious on this and tendentiously attack for what ever reason. You have not done anything to back your theories of how the article should or could be, just accused others and read people the riot act. ] (]) 23:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::My 'theory' is that articles should comply with policy, rather than with the half-baked conspiracy theories of contributors who fill article talk pages with bollocks about "brainwashing", "neuro linguistic programming" and "meme control". ] (]) 23:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:::::::Probably if you followed your theory your block log would look different. It is a conspiracy category article. ] (]) 00:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270588908|07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270341854|02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests}} "/* Uncontroversial technical requests */ Decline, this one is more of a histmerge request which would also be declined from ] - I'm happy to explain further on a talk page"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
::::::::Actually, it is an article about a political movement that some have accused of promoting conspiracy theories. Not that the article topic is relevant anyway, when discussing your abusing the talk page as a forum. ] (]) 23:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


Extremely aggressive edit warring. Xpander1 had expanded a redirect to a page with no issue but decided it would be better to just create a page, hence a discussion at ]. Editor decided to "redact contribution in protest", initially blanking then resorting to redirecting. ] would assist in reverting these changes with Xpander1 reacting negatively, violating 3RR to get it erased. Editor had created redirects such as ] and ], with ] being where he did a cut-and-paste move from original article. Has no intention to resolve dispute any time soon. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 08:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
This is getting tiresome. Yesterday AndyTheGrump posted a reminder that any proposal to redirect the articles should be noted on the talk pages of the articles concerned, with a link to the discussion, to which Earl responded with more bullshit. Of course Andy was correct, and it was up to Earl to sort it out really, but he didn't appreciate the advice. I tried to help him by adding a note to each of the talk pages, to which he has responded with yet more bullshit. Laughably, he has yet to provide a clear rationale as to why these pages should be redirects. He says ''what'' he'd like to do, and a few others simply agree (ignoring all guidelines), but hasn't said ''why'', even after all of this brouhaha. And he calls that "the flow of current discussion"! '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.3em; letter-spacing:-0.07em;">]]</span>''' 20:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


:All I did was self-reverting, the article had no significant history before my contribution. What you are describing as "copy-pasting", is me putting my own creation in a new page. As I have explained in many places, in the ], and elsewhere. My rationale is very simple, Misplaced Pages must distinguish between '''valid-article-creators''' and '''redirect-page-creators'''. I currently count as the latter. Which don't think is fair. ] (]) 08:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:This is a bad place to call Misplaced Pages editors contributions ''bullshit''. This is not a free for all for name calling. You could get blocked for doing that and you have used that word recklessly in other places, not just the immediate above. Uncivil, baiting nagualdesign. ] (]) 23:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
::As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on ] and on the . ] (]) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


The Teahouse discussion can be found (for now) at ]. Please see also ] and ]. ] (]) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Not when you post bullshit conspiracy theories on article talk pages, it isn't. ] (]) 23:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|72 hours}} , I am mystified—no, make it ''stunned''—that Xpander thinks this edit-warring is justified. In what sense are they not being attributed as the page creator sufficiently for their ego? Do they mean that the ''page creation log'' isn't saying that they are? Uh, that's something the ''software'' does, that by design no one has control over. {{u|Wetman}} is going to get credit for creating the ''page'', yes, as the empty redirect it was apparently quite happy to have been for 15 years. As noted, no editor familiar with how our processes work would doubt that Xpander, in practical terms, created the ''article'' by translating the dewiki article, regardless of what the logs say.<p>Xpander's repeated reversion to the redirect is, frankly, childish behavior that smacks of ]. I strongly remind them ].<p>I also reject their argument that ] shields them as they were merely always "reverting their own edit". Technically that might be arguable, but it is ''inarguable'' that, especially given their statement that ], they did so in a manner calculated to cause ] and interfere with the work of others. To allow this to pass on that basis would be opening up a whole new way to ]. ] (]) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::I warn you also that you are in violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines. It is never o.k. to make personal attacks Andy. Looking at your block history you have not understood that. Never means never. Not here and not on article pages. ] (])
:::Describing your bullshit conspiracy theories as bullshit conspiracy theories is not a personal attack. Still, if you want more attention drawn to your bullshit conspiracy theories, feel free to report me. ] (]) 23:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC) ::'''Addendum''': I also commend ] to {{u|Xpander1}}'s attention. ] (]) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Your block history says it all Andy ] (]) 00:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 hours) ==
The edit cited by Somedifferentstuff to open this thread is the first on that article in 9 days by Earl King Jr. Just pointing out what should be .--] 01:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Oriel High School}}
===Closing comments===
{{ANEW|stale}}. This was a valid report at the time, and I'm not really sure why nobody took action while the issue was fresh. That being said, the edit warring has ceased, at least for now, so no action is necessary at this time, and I am closing this thread with the following admonishments:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|92.238.20.255}}
:*{{Ping|Earl King Jr.}} You were edit warring on each of the three articles linked at the top of this report. There's no doubt about that, and your reasons ''don't matter''. Edit warring is unacceptable regardless of who's right or wrong, whether or not you think one or more editors have an agenda, or regardless of any other excuse you might come up with. If your tendentious editing continues, I would not be surprised to see someone file a report at ANI next time and ask for a topic ban.


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:*{{Ping|Somedifferentstuff}} Please remember that ] isn't a policy, it's a suggestion for one way to deal with editing conflicts. Editors are not required to follow BRD, so I advise against using someone's "disregard for BRD" as an argument in a discussion. Editors ''are'' required to avoid edit warring, however, so the intent of your report was correct.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:*{{ping|nagualdesign|AndyTheGrump}} In the spirit of ], please try to avoid describing other user's contributions or comments as "bullshit". It is by nature an inflammatory term, and is never useful for actually calming a dispute. I'm not trying to say everything has to be sunshine and rainbows all the time, but before you hit "save page", please try considering how you'd react if someone described your contributions the way you're describing others'.
# {{diff2|1270686162|19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
# {{diff2|1270685824|19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
# {{diff2|1270685483|19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
# {{diff2|1270684934|19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
# {{diff2|1270683674|19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"


I suggest, if this dispute continues, that it be taken to ANI for discussion of topic bans, or to other forms of ], or request ] instead of edit warring. &mdash;] (]) 06:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


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


'''Page:'''
* {{pagelinks|Nagarjuna|Samkhya|Adi Shankara}} <br />
* {{pagelinks|Samkhya}} <br />
* {{pagelinks|Adi Shankara}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Beyondname}}


<u>'''Comments''': This IP is trying to censor information in that article --] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</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. -->
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ] (]) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I undid that block and restored it because simply removing the block isn't really an option in response to actually disruptive editing, but the IP editor's behavior wasn't the main issue in this edit war. I'll send warnings around to people who should know better. ] (]) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' ] <br />
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kelvintjy}}
Diffs of the user's reverts:
*]
#
#
#
#


'''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:'''
*]
# # 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
#


<!-- 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:


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{ANEW|stale}} - report was valid at the time but this is now 3 days old. Please re-report as necessary. &mdash;] (]) 06:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
;Page: {{pagelinks|Nickki praize (Musician)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Ikonmc}}


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


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


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|607645709|15:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Only warning: Creating inappropriate pages on ]. (])"


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ergzay}}
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>
# {{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:'''
User keeps recreating the same page after it has been deleted several times (see talk page) ] (]) 15:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270879182|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small|(edit: corrected diff)}}
:Although the article recreation seems to have stopped, this account has 28 edits, ]. A quick glance shows ] under this title and ]. ] (]) 06:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
::I think that the reason why he stopped is because I gave him lots of warnings (4im and then 4) ] (]) 23:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*{{ANEW|no}}: Repeated page re-creation is not edit warring ''per se''. If this happens again, you can ], or report as ]. &mdash;] (]) 06:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270885380|18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" {{small|(edit: added diff, fix date)}}


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Qwaider}}


Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:


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


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected one week; IP range blocked two weeks) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
As you can see, Qwaider was invited on two occasions to join any of the seven talk page discussions about this material but declined (), racking up five reverts in as many hours. This material has been repeatedly attacked by a long stream of apparent sockpuppets/meatpuppets; it was by , and challenged on the talk page by , , , , ], , and . All are brand-new accounts whose first and only edits are about this highly controversial topic, except for Qwaider and بلال الدويك, who are very possibly alternative accounts operated by the same person ( boasts of living in Jordan, while Qwaider's were to ]; Qwaider has returned to Misplaced Pages after many years for the sole purpose of edit warring on this topic).] (]) 18:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul Cézanne}}
<u>Response:</u> <br />
From Qwaider:
I'm not sure how this works or if I can have a say in this issue. But I would like to make it clear that this person "The timesAreAChanging" have reverted the changes often times without providing cause. He insists on including anecdotal inflammatory unsubstantiated content. He has continuously refused requests to breakdown and cleanup the events in the table. He relied on one source that was disputed over and over including other pages on wikipedia. He also rejected changes from many other editors, without providing any reasonable cause. <br />
On the other hand he accuses people of being alternative accounts with no proof, and bullies/threatens of blocking in the case he doesn't have his way.<br />
This is the absolute opposite of the open communications that we need to have. He has not even once presented any alternative choice and have continually badgered other editors no matter he is told. From all my comments on the change he took "This is not worth discussing", which relate to the unsubstantiated anecdotal.
I humbly request to have this page be reverted to the right content, and a protection be imposed. Any additional information requires verification of the content. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I find to be downright fascinating. It says that in a week with 48 edits, the only change that's managed to stick was adding a "vandalism" template by an admin. (Apparently nobody can agree to anything else.) In any case, regardless of who's right or wrong, it's blindingly obvious that:
:#Nothing is getting done to ],
:#editors are spending a lot of energy on this nothing, and
:#the current approach of reverting and re-reverting just isn't working.
:I'm encouraged by the fact that there are no less than six sections on the talk page dealing with this (a seventh, indirectly, as it is an edit warring notice), so I really want to tell everybody to calm down, maybe take a break, ], and try to talk it out. ] (]) 19:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
::That's not a fair characterization of what's happening. This article is under a sustained, specifically focused, attack from an outside source which has galvanized people to come here and remove reliably source information they find what has been generally described as "offensive to Islam". The deletions are accompanied by a angry entries on the talk page a a few additions to the ] The source seems to be an Arab language blog or other website as nearly all the single purpose accounts originate in Arab-speaking countries, with a college (Texas A&M) town in Texas and Malaysia being the exception. The Texas IP seems to belong to someone who utilizes English as a second language. Almost all of the edits you've mentioned has been reversions of these attacks by long established editors. This is not an edit war or a generally contentious article, it's ] of single purpose ] accounts to vandalize and censor an article. These established editors need help, not patronizing links to wiki essays. ] (]) 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
:::I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that we're dealing with established editors or sockpuppets? It sounds like you need to assume good faith. Saying that it is being reverted because it is "offensive to Islam" when I cannot find this language anywhere is tantamount to accusing the editor of being a radical. On the other hand, you say "established editors need help" &mdash; sounds like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
:::In any case, the purpose of this board is to call attention to active edit wars, and to deal with them appropriately. Banning or blocking a user should always be a last resort, as it is supposed to be ]. Has a block been earned here? Definitely. Will it be given? I don't know. If the user in question decides to quit the edit-warring behavior and contribute on the talk page, then there's a good chance the answer is no. The appropriate way to deal with it depends greatly on the situation. If an editor can be brought around, then why not try it?
:::Also worth noting is that the version that GraniteSand is looking for is in fact the version that currently exists on the page. I'd say that a revert against consensus will probably be the litmus test as to whether a block is given or not. ] (]) 00:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
From Qwaider: Good advice. Getting my ], and ], and will update the talk pages when I have details.
] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding ] comment added 20:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}}
We also need a automatic temporary 3RR block for Qwaider as evidenced by the diffs provided by TimesAreAChanging. ] (]) 23:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
We need block for TimesAreAChanging for cyber bullying and threatening others. He also have reverted the same article many many times and we have reasons to believe that he will continue to do this. He is probably friends with GraniteSand and insists on spreading wrong and misleading information ] (]) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You're liable for a block for violating the ] rule. It would behoove you to read the rule. Several experienced editors have reached out to you to engage and help explain things to you. You've declined up to this point and now you're put yourself in a position where you've qualified for temporary block. ] (]) 23:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::It's clear that TimesAreAChanging and GraniteSand are a tag team performing the same type of changes to the same page so they can get around the ] rule, they are engaged in edit war. There have been more than 10 people requesting this change which means the insisting 2 editors are forcing everyone into their form of consensus. They are forcing an unsubstantiated source onto everyone. This has been rejected by about 10 editors already and yet they keep this game.
# {{diff|oldid=1271008210|diff=1271008905|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::I would like this addition to be removed and the page be protected. The content they provide is inaccurate, highly controversial, and unsubstantiated by any scientific source. It promotes hatred and intolerance by promoting lies and anecdotes.
## {{diff2|1271008695|06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
::On several occasions, they reverted the content more than 3 times, either without providing cause, or after threatening with banning users "Further edit warring will likely result in ANI intervention and sanctions." I'm not sure who appointed these people Misplaced Pages police? If I find their content being misrepresented I have the right to point that out. And I did.
## {{diff2|1271008905|06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
::My criticism is more than one issue, first, this information is far from accurate, second it spans 5 centuries and not a single event or a single war. Finally some of the events rolled into this entry are already mentioned in the same table.
# {{diff2|1271007344|06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
::Admins, please do not allow such practices to ruin this great platform. I have asked only to have the numbers CLEARED and BROKEN DOWN to the actual events that happened. Not lump everything under 5 centuries of events between many nations! In all events a specific event is mentioned, unlike this case.
# {{diff2|1271006989|06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
::Dear admins, this is a campaign by islamophobes and they're trying to tarnish the name of Muslims by blaming them for these casualties instead of blaming specific incidents that caused that problem. Not even a single sect of Islam is being blamed, but all of the Muslims and this is unfair and flat out racism.
#
::Kind Regards
::] (]) 00:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages is ] &mdash; majority rule doesn't count for anything here. What should be moving us is the quality of argument.
:::In reading through this entire piece of prose, I see only one argument here: that a five-century-long campaign ought to be broken out into its constituent parts, as there was not a single campaign running steadily through all those five centuries. It is an incontrovertible fact that this is by far the longest event listed on this page (the runner-up, at 196 years, is the Crusades).
:::You should focus your efforts on proving one of two points:
::#The ] is a bad article title, is too long of a conflict, and should not be included in the list of deadliest human disasters.
::#The number is inaccurate, and an alternative number is ???????. Alternately, you could argue that the number is inaccurate, and cite sources that take issue with the 80 million number.
:::If one of those can be argued successfully, you might succeed in building the consensus you seek.
:::Going on about "campaigns by Islamophobes," "ruining this great platform," "more than 10 people requesting this change," and the like will not help your case. ] (]) 01:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
::::Qwaider's summary of events strikes me as rather surreal; I have seldom seen so self-righteous an edit warrior! I was one of three editors who reverted him, but I did not add the material in question, and my so-called "cyber-bullying" consists entirely of the following : "Please adhere to ]. Further edit warring will likely result in ANI intervention and sanctions." (I clearly wasn't blowing smoke, and it's impossible to argue that there has been no 3RR violation.) I have never interacted with GraniteSand before in my life, and Qwaider is one to talk considering the numerous brand-new accounts repeating his arguments. In fact, it's rather difficult for me to believe that all of these ] with Middle Eastern origins who openly seek to combat "Islamophobia" are acting in good faith.] (]) 02:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::It's hard for me to believe too, but I'm trying not to take sides here. I am certainly not arguing that there has been no violation. I provided Qwaider with steps to advance his cause within the bounds of the wiki. ] (]) 02:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:::::: Thank you Jsharpminor for not taking any sides here. I would like to touch on the fact that the numbers have been inflated and cited from an unreliable source. The problem is clear that we don't have any level of accuracy with absolutely no statistics, the cited work commits a grave extrapolation statistical mistakes and I am in the process of obtaining it and writing a full thesis on it. In the mean time. As mentioned earlier:
# {{diff2|1271008376|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
:::::: # This is really a long period of human history, with no records and
# {{diff2|1271010383|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."
:::::: # there are 2 items in the same table that are part of this 500 year history. These items are: Item 3, Mongol Conquests 1206-1368 and item "Conquests of Timur-e-Lang".
:::::: What I am seeing is extremely zealot editors engaging in edit war, that I unknowingly, and unwillingly engaged in trying to state the facts that we don't have any reliable source for this information. It's not serving the truth or knowledge.
:::::: This is not a single purpose account, I use[REDACTED] all the time, I just don't edit that much. I do have a day job and don't have too much time to edit as much as I like. And I detest this continuous line of accusations. This has been mentioned several times. One time I am someone else, another time I was called what "edit sock??" or something like that? I don't know what you people feel but this isn't something that I enjoy being called.
:::::: I'm perplexed to compare last centuries statistics compare to 10th century statistics and come with only 20 million error margin, while we can't do the same for WWII which has values ranging 45 million. The audacity of such a claim is beyond anything preposterous I've ever seen!
:::::: And how come suddenly GraniteSand came here to "demand" a block for another user? Isn't this a clear case of collaboration? Anyway, I don't want to accuse anyone of anything I can't prove. All I know is that I am reading some inaccurate information on this page and I would like it to be corrected scientifically with real tangible facts, not anecdotes.
:::::: Once again, thank you J#minor for being neutral on this. ] (]) 03:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*{{ANEW|p}} for 3 days. I bumped up the protection to "full protection" because this is a clear content dispute involving (auto)confirmed editors. The entire first page of history represents exactly 0 bytes of productive editing - in 53 revisions by 26 users, no net change was made to the article except tagging with a protection template. With an article history like that, I am not going to declare that any one particular person is at fault -- but I admonish everyone to remember ] as well as the ] to avoid further disruption. Please seek ] if the talk page discussions are not fruitful. &mdash;] (]) 07:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)}} <br />
*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)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|198.228.216.17}}


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Droop quota}}
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#


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


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff|oldid=1271015536|diff=1271021273|label=Consecutive edits made from 08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
User has been edit warring using several different IPs:
## {{diff2|1271020237|08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 198.228.216.17
## {{diff2|1271021017|08:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 198.228.216.24
## {{diff2|1271021273|08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 198.228.216.35
# {{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"
* 198.228.216.45
* 198.228.216.28
User made changes information to inaccurate information. The original information had remained unchanged since 2011. User refuses to use the Talk page before making changes. I have submitted a request to protect the article temporarily .


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Comment''' - ], it looks like of reverts as well.... ] (]) 02:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
: I don't remember breaking the 3RR rule, but I guess there was one too many reverts there. However, I did constantly invite the user to the Talk page and I did stop reverting. ] (]) 15:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
:: Since those reverts aren't all within 24 hours, you technically didn't violate 3RR. In any case, the object here is to bring both parties to the talk page to start the discussion. I don't know yet what's going on; I'll look at it. ] (]) 22:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
::: I tried to bring him/her to the talk page; no result (s/he kept reverting). The worst part is that the page is now protected and can only be edited by administrators (even though I put the request for semi-protection), and the last edit that was kept was his/hers.] (]) 00:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
*{{ANEW|p}} by another admin. After analyzing the article history, it appears that {{user-c|Kentronhayastan}}'s change was what that the IP address editor saw as undesirable and reverted, so the "stable" version {{user-c|Ymblanter}} protected was the version prior to that change. I agree with that decision. {{Ping|Kentronhayastan|198.228.216.17}} you were both edit warring here. I am not blocking either of you because the disruption has ceased, and ], but I admonish you both to remember ] and I suggest ] as a means to avoid future edit wars. &mdash;] (]) 07:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
:::: ] Actually I was reverting an edit made by the IP and the following edit , which I would have reverted immediately when it happened had I been watching the article, because the information is not consistent with the rest of the article. The information the IP changed was discussed and accepted since 2011. The article is about the Kingdom of Armenia, so including the dates of its predecessor (]) and a capital two predecessors (]) ago is illogical (like I said earlier, it's like including the dates of the Roman Republic in the Romen Empire article). I did not break the 3RR, but the IP did, and I continuously invited the IP to discuss it on the Talk page with no success, yet the IP's misleading information is remaining in place. (I invite you to read the sources I have stated, including from Encyclopaedia Britannica and Iranica in the talk page of the article). Thank you. ] (]) 20:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Autism Research Institute}}
# {{diff2|1270714484|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ reply to Quantling"
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Neuroresearch}}
# {{diff2|1270714531|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit reply to Quantling"
# {{diff2|1270714949|22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ addition"
# {{diff2|1270715070|22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit addition"


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


User has been edit-warring for the past 9 months to try and reinsert incorrect information into the article, despite repeatedly having had this mistake corrected, and a consensus of 5 separate editors against these changes. Request page ban from ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 22:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=607868366|diff=607873250|label=Consecutive edits made from 05:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC) to 06:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|607870537|05:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "→ Moved Quackwatch reference to treatment section, requested citation for attribution of "beliefs org subscribes" to"
## {{diff2|607870743|05:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "→ Moved Quackwatch reference to treatment section, requested citation for attribution of "beliefs org subscribes" to and updated with current information regarding INSAR & conferences"
## {{diff2|607870913|05:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "→ Moved Quackwatch reference to treatment section, requested citation for attribution of "beliefs org subscribes" to and updated with current information regarding INSAR & conferences"
## {{diff2|607871006|05:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "→ Moved Quackwatch reference to treatment section, requested citation for attribution of "beliefs org subscribes" to and updated with current information regarding INSAR & conferences"
## {{diff2|607871448|06:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "→ Updated reference to ARI supporting ABA"
## {{diff2|607871765|06:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "→ This is a research funding organization, not a medical organization - updated "medical citations" required throughout"
## {{diff2|607871929|06:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "→ removed extra "arrow" in text"
## {{diff2|607873250|06:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "→ fixed Quackwatch reference - was a broken link"


:{{u|Closed Limelike Curves}}, the user appears to have self-reverted less than an hour after their last edit warring continuation, and 14 hours before your report. ] (]) 00:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
::Thanks, I missed that (I didn't notice the last edit was a self-revert). ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
# {{diff2|607879534|07:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
: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)

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|607880401|08:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Concerns about criticisms */ r"
# {{diff2|607881270|08:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Gross violations of WP:MEDRS, lack of WP:RS */ new section"

;<u>Comments:</u>

Note misleading edit summaries. Note changes to references gave them titles that were not accurate. This editor filed a notice at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and proceeded to revert multiple instances of multiple editors work without waiting for resolution or any consensus building. For a detailed explanation of the problems with the article justifying the tags see the talk page. There has been ongoing discussion, this editor made one comment and then proceeded to make multiple reverts. ] (]) 08:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3 initiated the reverts earlier in the day without explanation and reverted to content that was out-of-date and inaccurate. For example: the organization ended its conference two years ago - which was noted earlier in the Talk - but MrBill3 edited this back in. The organization also sponsored research with INSAR at one time, but it was noted that content was out-of-date as well - but MrBill3 reverted that back in too. He arbitrarily reverted back to a version of the page with outdated references that were discussed in the talk without explanation and will not accept changes from others. ] (]) 11:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears this article needs to be recast to frame the information around the organization's role as a non-profit that is funding autism research and omit out-of-date information. I am working on a draft based on the original that cites third-party sources. ] (]) 12:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I do apologize if MrBill3 felt the summaries were misleading - that wasn't the intention. It didn't make sense that edits that had been addressed previously in the Talk were being disregarded when he reverted.] (]) 12:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

*{{ANEW|ab}} for sock puppetry. &mdash;] (]) 07:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Not blocked) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Palestine League}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Uishaki}}

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:

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

Articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict broadly construed are subject to a one-revert restriction. See ]. Uishaki was alerted to the sanctions. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

*{{ANEW|not}} - the last revert was well over 24 hours ago, and there is no longer a plausible threat of disruption. However, additional (separate) sanctions may be necessary pursuant to ], and I will handle that directly on the editor's talk page. &mdash;] (]) 07:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Asmallworld}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|213.3.21.204}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=607943231|diff=607944191|label=Consecutive edits made from 18:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC) to 18:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|607943985|18:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "false information based on boulevard press, irrelevant for the company"
## {{diff2|607944191|18:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|607940717|17:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Too much information which is irrelevant for the company and concern the chairman personally"
# {{diff2|607940518|17:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|607940153|17:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|607939820|17:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|607939573|17:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|607939034|17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=607708649|diff=607845954|label=Consecutive edits made from 23:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC) to 00:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|607843429|23:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|607843688|00:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|607845954|00:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|607943664|18:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Many other editors also gave warnings. Tried to resolve on user talk page ] (]) 18:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

:{{ANEW|ab}} by {{user-c|Ymblanter}}. &mdash;] (]) 09:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Putin}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Moxy}}


Editor:Moxy is edit warring on three separate edit pages simultaneously (Putin, Russia, Ukraine), and has published a personal attack against this editor referring to me as child and inferring that he/she is the only "adult" editor on my Talk page. The edit warring by Moxy is further wallpapering false statements about "cut-and-paste", which has nothing to do with my edits which contain a fully researched quotation presented with full citation and URL given from mainstream news sources such as the NYTimes and The Wall Street Journal. Wikipolicy on "Valid usage" and "Fair usage" is explicit on this matter. These are the diffs for the edit warring on "Vladimir Putin":

(cur | prev) 20:58, 7 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (194,063 bytes) (-1,432)‎ . . (revert copy and paste job - Always write the articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article. - this is not hard to understand) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 20:52, 7 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (195,495 bytes) (+1,432)‎ . . (→‎Intervention in Crimean Peninsula: Add recent report in NYTimes of Putin attempt at de-escalation after Crimea military build-up. Add cite and url.) (undo)


These are the diffs for edit warring by User:Moxy on "Ukraine" page:

(cur | prev) 20:44, 1 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (247,691 bytes) (-625)‎ . . (WP:NOTHERE - editor has been told to join the conversations - but yet still edits this copy and paste job !!) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 20:27, 1 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,316 bytes) (+625)‎ . . (→‎Russian intervention in Ukraine: Adding update and cite of status of 2014 International Geneva Pact. The International Geneva Pact is the only Notable and neutral reference point for gauging the direction and progress of events in the region.) (undo)


These are the diffs for edit warring by User:Moxy on "Russia" page:

(cur | prev) 20:47, 1 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (201,538 bytes) (-1,523)‎ . . (revert copy and paste job again.. Did you even read your tlak page messages?) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 20:35, 1 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (203,061 bytes) (+1,523)‎ . . (→‎Annexation of Crimea and 2014 Geneva Pact: Agreement with PhilKn on condensed version, and the International Geneva Pact is the only Notable and neutral reference point for gauging the progress of events in the region. Add cite.) (undo)


The edit warring by User:Moxy must be halted and the personal attacks must be retracted. ] (]) 16:43, 9 May 2014 (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 -->
<!-- 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: Posted directly on Talk page for User:Moxy on my account name.

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

Attempt to request that User:Moxy stop edit warring and retract personal attack has been ignored. User:Moxy has now resorted to starting a whispering campaign on various Talk pages to foment further edit warring behavior against this editor (e.g., User:Irina and User:Malick, ''after'' being requested to stop edit warring on 3 wikipages simultaneously.) ] (]) 20:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

===Moxy's view ===
So lets look at the real story here - as in this editor has not replied to one of my posts. FelixRosch has been adding editorial quotes (copy and paste) of news article on multiple pages and has been reverted by multiple editors. He has conversation to no real avail - until today after implementing the text again . There are concerns raised about the edits that is begin ignored like ], ], ], ] and ]. As I have said to Malik Shabazz " I do blame myself for this - as my approach to him was heavy handed of the bat - a personal thing I have with copy and pasting that gets me upset. All we need is Felix to talk this out with the others over editing .....even if they revert him today again - how can we make this clear? I wont be reverting any more but I am afraid the others will and thus we will just be going in a edit war circle again. I have joined the conversation he started ] and was wondering if a RfC would be a good idea - as we need some outsiders looking at all this."

*Russia:- that have been reverted by 5 editors two times by me (Moxy).
*Putin:- - that have been reverted by 2 editors two times by me and saw the removal of with an summary saying "Repair Quotefarm problem..." - however nothing was fixed in that regard.
*Ukraine:- that have been reverted by 3 editors 1 time by me (Moxy).

Example addition below -
{{quotation| On 7 May 2014, The New York Times reported: "Putin Announces Pullback from Ukraine Border" after discussions with Switzerland's Dieter Burkhalter in an attempt to de-escalate mounting tensions of Russian troop massing on the border of southeast Ukraine during and following the Crimean intervention. Putin stated, "We were told constantly about concerns over our troops near the Ukrainian border... We have pulled them back. Today they are not at the Ukrainian border but in places of regular exercises, at training grounds." Putin added that in regard to pro-Russian forces acting within Ukrainian borders and in an appeal "to representatives of southeast Ukraine and supporters of federalization to hold off the referendum scheduled for May 11, in order to give this dialogue the conditions it needs to have a chance." In a reference to the scheduled 25 May 2014 presidential elections in Ukraine, Putin added: "Let me stress that the presidential election the Kiev authorities plan to hold is a step in the right direction, but it will not solve anything unless all of Ukraine's people first understand how their rights will be guaranteed once the election has taken place."}}

::-- ] (]) 22:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

{{ANEW|mr}} When providing diffs, you actually need to right click the "diff" or "prev" link and copy the URL. Don't just highlight and copy the entire line from history, because there's nothing leading to the actual edit when you do that. &mdash;] (]) 09:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Dinosaur Train}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|CharlieBrown25}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# {{diff2|608006665|04:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Mz7 suggested using milder wording. Thanks Mz7, I think you may have come up with the solution :-) !"
# {{diff2|608007214|04:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Oh gosh, come on, what's wrong with THIS now?"
# {{diff2|608007473|04:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Look, this version says it isn't definate, but possible. Can you please explain what's wrong with that?"
# {{diff2|608010202|05:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Look, please don't block me, I've waited for a talk page response, and no one's saying anything. And this isn't the same thing I've said before."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
#
# {{diff2|608008502|04:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* May 2014 */ c"


;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|608007674|04:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Shiny\Gilbert Romance Plot */ c"
# {{diff2|608010574|05:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Shiny\Gilbert Romance Plot */ c"
See also ], ]

;<u>Comments:</u>
{{ANEW|stale}}. This report was valid at the time, and 3RR was definitely broken, but the last revert was over 24 hours ago and the page is now protected. There's no current threat of further disruption, so no block has been issued. &mdash;] (]) 09:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Florida Atlantic University High School}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|198.23.71.99}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|608128289|22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608128133 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|608127819|22:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608126638 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|608126600|21:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608124617 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|608124445|21:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608124141 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|608124006|21:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608123120 by ] (])"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|608124813|21:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Just got the following post on my talk page, which indicates the user intends to engage in an edit war through VPN IP addresses to get his vandalism in the article: ] ] (]) 22:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
:Hi, 2Flows. Sorry to butt in, but I've requested that the High School's page be protected because of his vandalism (just in case the threat was real).--] ] ] 22:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks {{u|AbigailAbernathy}}, I see the page is now protected, so hopefully the IP editor will stop with their disruptive editing. ] (]) 22:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

{{ANEW|ab}} for vandalism. &mdash;] (]) 09:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Sukhoi PAK FA}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|198.228.211.37}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|608165392|03:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608162779 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|608166320|03:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608165463 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|608167161|03:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608166363 by ] (])"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|608166397|03:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Seems like a possible vandalism-only or agenda-only account. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 03:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
:Now this guy is making uncited changes too. Seems like he got too carried away with reading APA. ] (]) 03:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

{{ANEW|b|31 hours}} &mdash;] (]) 09:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Naturopathy}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Barylomax}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# - Revision as of 21:37, 11 May 2014
# - Revision as of 21:39, 11 May 2014
# - Revision as of 21:42, 11 May 2014
# - Revision as of 21:44, 11 May 2014
# - Revision as of 21:48, 11 May 2014
# - Revision as of 21:57, 11 May 2014
# - Revision as of 22:01, 11 May 2014
# - Revision as of 22:11, 11 May 2014
# - Revision as of 22:13, 11 May 2014

<!-- 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 />
Conflict of interest . Attacks , . Not sure what this is supposed to be but the edit summary makes COI clear. ] (]) 08:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
{{ANEW|b|24 hours}}. &mdash;] (]) 09:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: 3 days) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Party of Slovenian People}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|93.103.69.172}}, {{userlinks|Jazbar}}

Previous version reverted to: {{oldid|Party_of_Slovenian_People|606900637|14:08, 3 May 2014}}

Diffs of the user's reverts:

:As anon:
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|606900637|606899612|14:08, 3 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|606900757|14:10, 3 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|607228520|10:33, 6 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|607364938|03:17, 7 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|607427350|03:23, 7 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|607432951|07:31, 7 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|607573103|10:50, 8 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|607921998|10:12, 11 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|608188068|08:45, 12 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|608206974|16:16, 12 May 2014}}

:As ]
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|606901060|14:19, 3 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|607003824|10:44, 4 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|607308159|16:10, 6 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|607427885|03:38, 7 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|607429442|03:47, 7 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|607430544|04:04, 7 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|607468624|02:10, 8 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|Party_of_Slovenian_People|next|607619379|16:09, 8 May 2014}}

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
* to Jazbar:
:# {{diff|User_talk:Jazbar|prev|607573290|02:54, 8 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|User_talk:Jazbar|prev|607432968|04:16, 7 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|User_talk:Jazbar|prev|607430588|03:50, 7 May 2014}}
* to anon:
:# {{oldid|User_talk:93.103.69.172|606901151|14:13, 3 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|User_talk:93.103.69.172|next|606901151|03:20, 7 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|User_talk:93.103.69.172|607573290|606996408|03:25, 7 May 2014}}
:# {{diff|User_talk:93.103.69.172|next|607427995|18:36, 12 May 2014}}

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: {{diff|Talk%3AParty_of_Slovenian_People|606996502|466149947}}

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Low-intensity edit-warring, not sure if there was a breach of 3RR strictly speaking, but there are more than enough reverts for the situation to be clear. I strongly suspect this is the same user, reverting alternatively as logged-in and non-logged-in (same pattern). User Jazbar responded to my attempt of resolving the dispute at ], but gave no arguments, just vague accusations of bias. Note that he has also threatened me and generally behaved uncivilly, which I reported at ], but my report was overlooked (see ). — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

{{ANEW|b}} - both IP and registered editor have been blocked for 3 days. Length of block is due to slow pace of edit war. &mdash;] (]) 00:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Scarlett Johansson}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Rusted AutoParts}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|608221102|13:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Relationships */ where she lives isn't exactly vital information people need." '''(1 set of reverts)'''
# {{diff2|608233908|15:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 608221102 by ]: The problem here is, though the source says she "lives" there, Johansson has said in numerous interviews she "spends time there". . (])"
# {{diff2|608263081|18:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Not really needed in the infobox." '''(2nd different set of reverts)'''
# {{diff2|608272294|20:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)}} "It's a useful parameter for politicians and such. For an actor, its not immediately important to know where they live. As long as its in the article body, an infobox addition isn't necessary. If you feel different, please take to the talk page"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
{{diff|User_talk%3ARusted_AutoParts|485256353|485250987|00:34, 3 April 2012}} (See also

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


;<u>Comments:</u>
Why are people so swift to interpret this as an edit war? It's baffling, as both are two sets of ''different'' edits not in combative form. First two were removing the info from the article completely. Other two are from the infobox. Why I'm being reported is understandable, I have a history, but in this context, in no way am I engaging in a war. They are two separate edits of different contexts, failing ]. I personally feel this is a jab considering we were on different ends on the spectrum on a previous debate. I must make clear that in no way I went in here with a malicious intent, and ask that this be dies acknowledged so a discussion at the relevant talk page can unfold. ] 21:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
:Probably because the language of ] specifically says: "''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.''" <s>That said, I have no inclination to block anyone if there aren't going to be any more reverts.</s> --] (]) 21:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
::Theres a discussion going on as we speak. No one has reverted since the discussion began, and can assure no more will occur. ] 21:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': A diff of edit warring is supposed to indicate that you've warned the editor in question ''recently'' about ''this'' edit war. A warning from two years ago seems a little out of place here. ] (]) 22:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
::Oh, I think at this stage, it is safe to assume RAP is aware of ]. --] (]) 23:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
*{{ping|Rusted AutoParts}} I just noticed that your previous 6 month edit warring block was undone in February when you agreed to a 1RR restriction; which you've violated twice now on this article alone. Something you didn't mention when you tried to parse the meaning of a 3RR restriction. Did you forget about that promise? What possible reason can there be for not re-imposing the 6 month edit warring block? --] (]) 23:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
:I didn't forget. I've prided myself with avoiding any edit war, seemingly up until now. Those incidents were because I got hotheaded. Here, it was a blunder on my part as I forgot to go to the talk page. But I swear, I am engaging in that discussion and this is just an isolated incident. I'm not the world's most perfect person, but I do my best to do what's right. Looking at the issue, I was in the wrong, I acknowledge that and apologize. I look back on my blocks and shake my head, wondering why I was so dumb. Then again, when I started on Misplaced Pages in 2010, I was 15. I was young, cocky, naive. It's 2014. I'm gonna be 20 soon, and maturing. I have my growing pains, but I take them as learning experiences and try and discipline myself to prevent any further incidents. I got slipped up a bit here. ] 00:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
::I have a feeling if some of the admins involved in that February unblock discussion on your talk page saw this, they would re-impose the 6 month block. If they did, it would be nearly impossible to argue with them. However, because (a) I'm just an old softie, (b) I suppose perfection is an unreasonable expectation, (c) it's such a shame to block an otherwise good faith editor for 6 months even when they're frequently stumbling into trouble, and (d) my instinct is that you actually are trying to change, it ain't going to be me doing the blocking. '''''Please''''' consider limiting yourself to 0RR except for vandalism; just discuss '''all''' good faith disputes rather than revert even once. That's a really strong suggestion, not a requirement, but being scrupulous about 1RR '''is''' a requirement. You're on life number 8.99; it's only because I'm rounding down that your 9 lives aren't up. Please. --] (]) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
:::I swear if I do it again, I won't even argue for another chance. I'll just walk away. Thank you. ] 01:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Young Earth creationism}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Master of ravens}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=608163361|diff=608294314|label=Consecutive edits made from 23:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) to 23:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|608293729|23:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Age of the Earth */"
## {{diff2|608294314|23:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Interpretations of Genesis */"
# {{diff2|608140177|23:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Age of the Earth */"
# {{diff2|608129867|22:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608128593 by ] (])"
# {{diff|oldid=608123726|diff=608127496|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) to 21:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|608125009|21:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Added knew info that states the areas of the book of genesis that old earth creationists believe can be interpreted metaphoricly"
## {{diff2|608127496|21:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Age of the Earth */"
# {{diff2|608123559|21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Age of the Earth */ For the 100000 time I am trying to make Misplaced Pages fair by not showing some one elses view as fact. But atheist keep changing back. please help so this site can become a better place."
# {{diff2|608121886|21:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Age of the Earth */"
# {{diff2|608120845|21:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Age of the Earth */"
# {{diff2|607993826|01:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|607993095|01:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Age of the Earth */"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
#{{diff|User_talk%3AMaster_of_ravens|608121937|608121067|21:33, 11 May 2014}}
#{{diff|User_talk%3AMaster_of_ravens|prev|608121067|21:29, 11 May 2014}}
#{{diff|User_talk%3AMaster_of_ravens|prev|607995117|02:05, 11 May 2014}}
#{{oldid|User_talk:Master_of_ravens|607993104|01:43, 11 May 2014}}
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


;<u>Comments:</u>
{{AN3|blocked|48 hours}} by ] ] (]) 23:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Amhara people}} <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: {{Diff|Amhara_people|607084107|606774820|04 May edit}} (but this had happened intermittently since February 2014)

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{Diff|Amhara_people|608277944|607783242|20:44, 12 May 2014}}
# {{Diff|Amhara_people|608281080|608280849|21:10, 12 May 2014}}
# {{Diff|Amhara_people|608281512|608281373|21:13, 12 May 2014}}
# {{Diff|Amhara_people|608302322|608299713|00:26, 13 May 2014}} (This one is slightly different, but still a revert to his version. At this point, rather than running afoul of 3RR myself (I hope), instead of reverting the content I simply restored the {{]}} tag ({{Diff|Amhara_people|608299713|608281512|00:04, 13 May 2014}}), which had been in place since Feb. 2013. But Gembres reverted this, as well)

This is just in the past 24 hours; the reverts have been occurring since around the beginning of the month.
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: {{Diff|User_talk:Gembres|prev|608295973}}

<!-- 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: See ] {{Diff|Talk:Amhara_people|607209286|606774921|02 May}}, {{Diff|Talk:Amhara_people|608297825|608285939|12 May}} although I have attempted to maintain a discussion on that page with this user since February 2014. ], at my request, weighed in as well ({{Diff|Talk:Amhara_people|607365629|607331319|06 May}}).

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
I had tagged this article back in February 2013 for reasons I've laid out at ]. Gembres believes I am singling out this article due to ethnic bias, but I have explained why I have specific issues with ''this article''. -- ] ] 00:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} &mdash; ] ] 04:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Edward Guiliano}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Paeancrime}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|608314886|02:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608314588 by ] (]) excuse me? Kndimov agreed with me that GB Fan is a banned sockpuppet"
# {{diff2|608314021|02:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608313613 by ] (]) again Kndimov agreed with me. GB Fan is a banned sock"
# {{diff2|608313608|01:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "kndimov agreed to take back his edits, see his talk page"
# {{diff2|608312625|01:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "GB Fan is a banned sockpuppet. See Loriendrew's comment on GB Fan's talkpage"
# {{diff2|608311302|01:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "reverting vandalism and editwarring by GB fan"
# {{diff2|608310450|01:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608310236 by ] (]) not reliable source, NYT is a reliable source"
# {{diff|oldid=608308072|diff=608308508|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) to 01:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|608308443|01:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 608308072 by ] (]) non notable"
## {{diff2|608308508|01:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "delete"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|608315379|02:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|608316235|02:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (])"
# {{diff2|608318247|02:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

We are having dscussion at WP:ANI. Matter is settled now. No editwarring going on for a while now. This is totally unwarrented.--] (]) 03:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:51, 23 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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