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 02:33, 25 February 2016 view sourceZander251 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,864 edits →User:Jkaradell reported by User:A guy saved by Jesus (Result: ): Add note← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:46, 24 January 2025 view source Zinnober9 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers52,996 editsm Wiki-link in external-link syntax error addressed 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{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 = 308 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f |key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|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: Blocked) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
'''Pages:''' {{pagelinks|Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
:and {{pagelinks|Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kordestani<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}


'''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. -->
<!-- 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. -->
*Breaking 1RR on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:* 23:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270068423|19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
# {{diff2|1270041541|16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
# {{diff2|1270039369|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1270041824|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:* 13:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270040704|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
# {{diff2|1270045411|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*Breaking 1RR on Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map:


All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:* 23:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
:* 12:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:: You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - ] (]) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:: More reverts , can someone do something? - ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::: {{AN3|p}} I also note the user has been alerted to CTOPS, which I protected the page under, so there will be no room for argument if this behavior continues. ] (]) 23:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==
<!-- 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:


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


'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> The articles on which the edit warring occurred are subject to ]. And the user being reported 2 days before he engaged in 1RR violations. This user has a ] mentality. Before being notified of the sanctions, he had engaged in edit warring. However, his being notified of the sanctions, did not change his attitude. Also, you can see that in the last 4 days, he has received messages from 2 other users complaining about his attitude (). In addition, there is a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his bad edits over the last few days. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{AN3|b}} – One week for edit warring on ] on 23 February. ] (]) 20:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: All parties warned) ==
# 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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Fajr decade}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|FreeatlastChitchat}}


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


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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


Hello
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
the user Kelvintjy has been engaged in another war last summer and was banned from the ] page. He's been pursuing an edit war on the ] page too without daring give explanations on the talk page though he was invited to do it many times. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
There was a dispute over some sections of the article which led to edit war between FreeatlastChitchat. Thanks to ] and ], we were . Suddenly, FreeatlastChitchat jumped in and started reverting without paying attention to the ] on the article talk page (which he himself had started but had not led to consensus yet). Anyway, after I his edit and asked him not to be disruptive and pay attention to the current discussion. To my surprise he reverted me once and claimed that there was a consensus over what he alleges (which was clearly not true!). '''Note:''' The reported user has been five times till now (three times for edit warring). Moreover, he were unblocked by ] provided that he attempts to self adhere to ] (his contributions shows that he has shown zero effort to respect ]). ] (]) 16:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}} ] (]) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Rationale aka defence'''
*:@] you blocked this user from the page ] in Aug. 2024 for the same reasons. ] (]) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Explanation for ] who was kind enough to ask about this on my TP. So here goes. The simple fact is that three editors agree with me that the text I removed falls under ], one of them is the longtime editor and admin Drmies, the other two are also editors in good standing. However IF the nom can PROVE to anyone that the text is not ] I will accept any sanction given. On the other hand if the nom cannot give even a single argument for his editing, then the question should be "why did he revert me?" and he should be blocked for 24 hours as per his disruption. This is wikipedia, not a playground. A revert should be made only when you can argue for something. If you do not have rationale you should not revert simply based on the fact that someone has agreed to 1PR; for in this case you are just harassing that editor. As far as the ongoing discussion on TP is concerned, it is about other things, not about coatrack. The issue about coatrack has already been decided. ] (]) 08:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
*:You also block Raoul but later unblocked him after he made his appeal. ] (]) 00:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:First, there's no consensus on removing all the sections regarding the events (as you did). Second, I simply reverted you as there were an ongoing discussion on the TP, ignoring which you did what you wanted. Two of us were mentioning that the article needs some information on "on the holiday as it is celebrated nowadays", and "how are their actions related to the historical events from 1979". Anyway, it's not a matter of ] or other things, you're edit war is discussed here. Third, At ]'s request I can provide some other violation of ] by the reported user. ] (]) 12:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::] Firstly I hang my head in shame when I see that your sole reason for reverting me is "I simply reverted you as there were an ongoing discussion on the TP". Discussions are ongoing on TP '''All the Time''', you should first see if the discussion is about a certain topic or not. The discussion about coatrack had been concluded, hence my removal. Secondly please stop this foolish forum style posting. You made a report. I made my defence. Let admins decide. If you want to make additional comments, fine with me, make then in the comments section. ] (]) 12:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::No, there were no conclusion over that! before you started your second round of reverts, you me and ] if we were agreeing that they were coatrack, and I what my concern were (HyperGaruda did not make any comments). BTW, I see that multiple warnings and blocks has not made you refrain from calling other's edits {{tq|"foolish"}}. FYI, this is how we usually discuss in Misplaced Pages and it has nothing to do with "forum". ] (]) 13:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::::@] as per your your "concern is on the fact that the article lacks information on "how the holiday is revered in Iran" nowadays." How can you address ] concerns with a comment saying that the article "lacks information"? Seriously dude? Did you even read the coatrack essay? Just for once, read the guideline and policy. To be frank this is just a mockery of editing! Someone says there are coatrack concerns in their edit summary and a guy reverts them by saying "Yeah dude the essay lacks information" and then lodges an edit warring complaint. Really? I mean Seriously? I think ] of a 24 hour block and a reprimand should be served now, seeing that he himself gave the diff which brought to light his "grave concerns" which he had about the article, and perhaps the next time we won't have to go through this waste of time. ] (]) 15:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::There's a clear "No" in . Are you trying to see it? ] (]) 18:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::@] for that "NO" you should be blocked for 24 hours and given a stern warning. Saying "NO" is not enough, you must give a reason. As I said before this is not a playground. Why are you digging yourself deeper into this hole btw? Furthermore I will not be replying here anymore. Perhaps ] will be kind enough to take a look at this thread and close it. ] (]) 06:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I had clearly explained why I was not in agreement. You're again ] enough to my attempt to gather more views {{tq|"ridiculous"}} (however it's more polite than using the "F" word (and it's derivatives such as "what the f**k and ), " mental disease", "you are a liar" and etc). Stop block block block please. ] (]) 12:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
He also reversed me 4 times over the last few hours. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
And before you claim anything, correcting an obvious mistake is not vandalism. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I checked the case. Both of you had clearly violated ], as I below. ] (]) 04:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' All parties are warned against further edits that don't have consensus support on the talk page. There is now an open RfC on the talk page; please use that to resolve the issue. ] (]) 03:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
::] I would not open this topic (and a RFC), if I were to make further edits. Did you just notice that I was talking about an edit warring trend? The user is clearly accused on another case. Anyway ... . ] (]) 03:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
:::@] TP discussion shows that 5 editors disagree with you with no one agreeing to you coatrack, your RFC shows that no one agrees with you. Show some good grace and let it be. Bottom line. The text you want to insert remains deleted unless you can address ] concerns. What you call a "trend" on my part is something normal wikipedians do all day long. i.e remove policy violations. ] (]) 03:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
::::See the the other topic reporting you. You are already guilty of violating 3RR. ] (]) 03:59, 23 February 2016 (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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==


== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Template:Sunni Islam}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|FreeatlastChitchat}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}
{{hat|1=Collapsing a long report to save space. Click to view. ] (]) 18:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC) }}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ergzay}}
Previous version 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:
#
#
#
#


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# {{diff2|1270885082|18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Reverting for user specifying basically ] as their reasoning"
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{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 ]"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Uninvolved myself''' ''FreeatlastChitchat must know 3RR - there is an ongoing discussion above about FreeatlastChitchat violating 3RR on an other article.''
# {{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:'''
<!-- 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 -->
# {{diff2|1270879182|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small|(edit: corrected diff)}}
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: '''Uninvolved myself''' None of the users involved discuss, all just edit war one with the other


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1270885380|18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" {{small|(edit: added diff, fix date)}}
I am not involved but saw this. Everybody has done wrong. Two IPs have changed the template arguing "sufi isn't a school of divinity". Uncorrect behavior but not vandalism. FreeatlastChitchat reverts 4X in 4 hours. Having the right version is not an excuse for 3RR violations. As I'm not involved and all have erred, I restored the version FreeatlastChitchat prefers, but must also report FreeatlastChitchat - an established user should know better. Particularly when the user is already involved in ongoing report for 3RR violations on different article. ] (]) 18:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
* Reverting an IP hopper whose edits are pure troll behavior with religious bias is allowed. I had requested page protection but there seems to be shortage of admins on RFPP I presume. This is not a matter of "whose version is better" this is simply a vandal abusing multiple IP's. He has been trying it at another page as well, but that too is being reverted. ] (]) 18:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
** No. You have the right version but the others are not vandals. They explain why they change, they argue "sufi isn't a school of divinity". That is not right, but is not vandalism. You do not have the right to revert them 4X even if you have the right version. Template is now protected. If the other changes IP, they are also guilty of 4RR but still not vandalism. ] (]) 18:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::btw this report smells to be frank. MR anon IP guy just how exactly did you find this "template"? Templates are not normally read by "readers" , and without a watchlist it is impossible to check them for changes. So just how DID you find out that this edit war was going on? ] (]) 18:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::I checked history. So what? It would not matter if I said 'divine inspiration', both you and the others edit war no matter what I saw. And do remark that I support your version and I restored your version. Why talk about me? What does it matter for your edit war? ] (]) 18:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::Oh but how did you "chance" upon this template page? Templates are not for our readers, they are usually not even known to most readers. How did you come to visit this page which is tucked away. Just asking ] (]) 18:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::My interestes are Zoroastrianism and Islam. What does it matter? You edit war 4X and you make it sound that I am the one who did wrong. Did you edit war? Yes, four times. Can anyone do a report when they see edit war? Yes, I think so. If you edit war 4X, why discuss me? Is the issue my interests in Misplaced Pages or is the issue your edit war? ] (]) 18:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Everytime you post a report. Your own actions are scrutinized. It is quite amazing that a person who has not edited a template till now is able to first of all "find" that template and then edit it. ] (]) 18:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Good. Now you have scrutinized my actions. I have explained them. Now I scrutinize your actions. Why do you edit war? An user did a report on you few days ago. Now you edit war again. Perhaps you did edit war also earlier. If you know the rules, why you break them so many times? ] (]) 18:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::removing vandalism of IP hoppers is not "edit warring". You will have to explain how you "just by accident" chanced upon a "template" . "Just" when this was going on. A hell of a coincidence , don't you think. If you say you wanted to edit the template, then "where is your edit"? You did not put in any text or take away any text. So what where you doing at the template page? ] (]) 18:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::Here is my edit . My first edit. You see I answer when you ask, you never answer. Why you edit war so much? You say "vandalism" but that is not vandalism. The IP did wrong, but did not do vandalism. The IP thinks "sufi isn't a school of divinity". That is wrong, but thinking that is not vandalism. You behave in way like you are the judge here when you are person who did edit war. ] (]) 18:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


You press the E button to edit the template. Sufi is not a school of divinity. Why does this keep getting added when there is no proof that it is. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::::: that is a revert not an edit. Where is the "edit" you came to this article to do. You see only editors with accounts have watchlists, so if you are claiming that you do not have any account and did not see the "changes" made to the template. Just what were you going to do "had we not ben warring as you say". The non suspicious pattern is that if an IP editor goes to an article they may red it or edit it. Templates are not usually "read". So what were you doing at that template MR IP guy who seems to be quite well versed in[REDACTED] policies for first time user. ] (]) 19:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{nao}} Where is the discussion on the template's talk page per ]. I see that there's been a protected edit request by IP 213.205.198.201 stating that "Sufi is not a school of divinity." (rightly rejected by an editor other that FreeatlastChitchat as the ] is on those making the declaration to bring ] demonstrating this to be the case), and a comment by IP 84.13.168.43 also stating the same. This does not make the reversions by FreeatlastChitchat 'edit warring', but standard procedure in the case of vandalism, POV removals of content, etc. --] (]) 23:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Have you even read WP:BURDEN? It says that <b>the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with be editor who adds or restores material</b>. It is not my duty to prove that something is false it is your duty to prove that something is true. I am trying to fix an obvious error and somebody keeps reversing. Sufi is not a school of theology. Prove that it is. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{od}}{{nao}}{{yo|user:213.205.251.204}} It is not the duty of Misplaced Pages to prove that something that you perceive to be untrue, is indeed so. Erasing content that is rightly sourced is POV vandalism, and will not be tolerated. Also, I've read through the talk page for ], and no where do you specify what is incorrect, and how it is incorrect compared to ], or the many references that counter your point. This would also mean the burden to prove that it is untrue would be on you. Otherwise your edits are ], and also ] seeing as you have brought zero references to back your claims. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:It should also be noted that ] is relevant in the context of its inclusion being the long standing version of the template, meaning that it is the ] template by default. If you wish to change a consensus template/article/list, the onus falls on the editor/s wishing to remove the consensus content to demonstrate that the redaction is not a POV and ] removal. --] (]) 03:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:* ]: You said that FreeatlastChitchat's reverts were not edit warring rather it was a stansard way of dealing with vandalisms and removing ]. Your argument is basically wrong per ]. Although 3RR rule has some definite exemptions, non of them justify FreeatlastChitchat's edit warring! Was he fighting an obvious vandalism (page blanking and adding offensive language) ? Not actually! was it removal of clear copyright violations and such things? was it violating ]? No! He should not have engaged that war and he should have avoided violating ]. The reported user were blocked 3 times for edit warring so he clearly knows what "edit warring" is! I'm not endorsing the IP's persistent edit warring. In fact both of them did the wrong thing! ] (]) 04:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::*{{re|Mhhossein}} Please read . Did you also not note that IP 84.13.168.43 (see ) and IP 213.205.251.204 (see ) are one and the same person? In other words, that user was attempting to change a widely used template (and the template has been placed under pp ). The policy you are invoking is not as absolute as you seem to be reading it as being, and the issue of where editors are overstepping the bright line and where they are not has been discussed over and over at the Village pump and the AN. Please don't invoke policies as if they were cut and dried with no room for leverage. --] (]) 05:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
The whole flipping point is that it isn't "rightly sourced". In fact it has never been sourced. There is absolutely no proof that Sufi is a school of theology. No proof has ever been given. Where are the references? There isn't one. So stop claiming that there are "many references". This is not vandalism but fixing a clear error given that there are zero proofs to back up your claim. As for your claim to consensus, then this has never been discussed in the first place. It was added a few months ago by a banned user so should have been reversed anyway. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
If anything, I am the one reversing to the consensus version!!! You are the one reversing back to a version by a banned user!!! <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::*{{re|Iryna Harpy}} The location is identical. But one of the IPs is dynamic while the other one is static. One is provided by "Talk Talk" while the other is provided by "Orange mobile". Even if we assume they're the same, so what? It's not the case here because a bright line (3RR) is violated. Sorry, but your argument is again not sensible to me. How (why?) should we ignore the violation of ] by both of them? The policy is clear and I think those exemptions certainly provide enough {{tq|"room for leverage."}} The case is even more clear if the disputed content had was added by a banned user as "213.205.251.204" claims. ] (]) 05:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::::*Well, {{u|Mhhossein}}, I went through the history to see when it was introduced earlier on in the piece (which is why I previously noted that this seemed to be a long standing consensus version). None of the editors with accounts or IP editors were banned, and it was not eliminated by other editors active on that template since being introduced in June 2015. Perhaps IP 213.205.251.204 can edify us as to who this 'banned' editor is... and include the relevant diff? I know that you have another dispute going here, having reported FreeatlastChitchat above, but the editor is a newbie and is entitled to a little leniency when slip-ups occur in good faith. Personally, I see a reprimand and warning to be adequate, but I am not going to look into or involve myself in your report against the user. I do think it best that an admin step in and evaluate the situation. I hope that you understand that I've involved myself in good faith and bear no animosity towards you. I sincerely hope you get this sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. --] (]) 06:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{yo|Drmies}}{{yo|Slakr}} <s>I have to agree that both parties <s>]<s/>, and ] are in violation here.<s> However, ], FALCC was reverting because the IP editor was removing information under the basis of ]. Also, FALCC might of been blocked previously for edit warring, but that does not allow you the ] to remind ] editors of past misdeeds. I'm pinging a few administrators (mainly those who have previously dealt with FALCC) so this problem can be resolved. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::No it wasn't introduced in June 2015. That's just not true. The editor who introduced it is https://en.wikipedia.org/User:TheDestroyer10 and he added it on the 17th dec 2015 at 19.28pm. Before then it did not exist. It was never discussed. No proof was ever given for this claim. Even now no proof has been given. I was right to remove this unsourced, unreferenced false information that was never discussed and was added by a banned user. You are wrong to accuse me of vandalism. I was reverting to a consensus version. You guys are reverting to a version by a banned user. Says it all really. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::Can you please proide an ''actual diff'' to when the content was added to the article? ]<sup>]</sup> 06:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::@] was the one which introduced the text. The editor in question did a huge amount of work on the template and all watchers were happy with his work. He is not a banned user, rather he has done quite a good job of cleaning up and organizing the template. Furthermore, we never source anything in the template itself. The sources aka rationale for inclusion is found in the article itself. So anyone who wants this out is welcome to argue at the Sufism page, where he may encounter some laughter, but then, that's what happens when you argue against such obvious things. I'd like to point out that trash talking about another editors hard work is a mightily low blow, especially when the editor in question has done such a good job on the template. To be frank, not every single thing on[REDACTED] needs a TP discussion, the editor who inserted this was being watched by quite a lot of uninvolved guys, and our lack or reverting should be considered our consensus. I am kinda surprised that someone who is jumping IP's in order to insert a highly POV edit is not being considered a vandal. It is basic IP abuse to be frank, and POV edits on templates from such users are blatant vandalism, hence fall out of 3PR. Had the said user opened up any TP discussion giving any rationale, I would have engaged them on TP. But seeing that that they are jumping IP's to vandalise, I reverted them as a vandal, which thier edits show them to be. ] (]) 06:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::{{yo|FreeatlastChitchat}} I wasn't 'talking trash' about you at all. I'm sorry if my edits were perceived that way. Also, the edit the IP editor is quoting is one of theseedits from December 2015. This would be incorrect, seeing as you just provided an earlier diff from April 2015 where Safi is included in the article. Again, I just want to convey that I'm absolutely assuming good faith here, and I want to apologize for saying you were in the wrong. I was going to quote the fact that you are under ], but I decided against it, seeing as this is a case of ]. I've also strikeout my above statement. I do stand by my statement towards ] about reminding ] editors about past misdeeds. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
{{od}} Well that's just a bare faced lie. It was NOT introduced in the April edit you provided. In fact that edit actually agrees with my one. How ironic!!! The actual edit that added Sufi was . It was added by a banned user a few months ago and was never discussed. So it is not vandalism to remove unsourced, unreferenced content added by a banned user that was never discussed. It is vandalism however to keep adding this unsourced content 4 times in a few hours as you did. You really ought to be blocked. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:See this edit , See the second edit . ] (]) 07:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::What are you on about? Both edits give the same list for Schools of Theology. They are: Athari, ilm al-Kalam, Ashari and Maturidi. There is no mention of Sufi as a school of divinity/theology in either edit. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::{{yo|213.205.251.63}} Please go to this, press control + f, and type in sufi. You'll see it right on the page. If you can't see it, I don't know what to tell you. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no mention of Sufi in either edit. It does not exist. Do a search for Sunni schools of divinity. You will only see Athari, Ilm al-Kalam, Ashari and Maturidi. Look at the source for both edits and you will not see Sufi at all. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::My apologies, all, for typing in June when I meant April of 2015. IP 213.205.251.63, I don't know what you're looking at, but it seems strange that at least 3 other editors can see it as such: {{tq|"Sunni schools of theology" - Ash'ari, Maturidi, Sufi, Ahl al-Hadith or Athari"}}. --] (]) 09:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
*Thank you ] for your civil response. I see your good faith here, just like what ] is doing here. But I think we're missing the point, the reason I recalled ]'s block log was to say that he had been well aware of what he was doing and I can't accept that he's a newbie. Anyway, even if we suppose that the IP was a vandal (which is not a case here till now!) the policy (]) emphasizes on "obvious vandalism", i.e. edits such as page blanking and adding offensive language. Did the IP blanked the page or did he used an offensive language really? Btw, I have a question for ]: Are you endorsing FreeatlastChitchat's multiple reverts? {{ping|Iryna Harpy}} even if we suppose that the "sufi" term is right...nothing changes, we're discussing a repetitive disruptive behavior? ] (]) 09:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::{{yo|Mhhossein}} Please see ] (point #4). The IP editor was removing content on a purely POV basis. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:::You are looking in the wrong place. The source for the April edit does not include Sufi as a school of theology/divinity. This was added on the 17th Dec as per my previous note. In mobile view you can see this clearer. This is the April edit . There is no mention of Sufi. This is the Dec edit . You can see that Sufi is added. In desktop mode the template itself always displays Sufi for all historic edits even for edits where I explicitly removed Sufi. E.g . If you check the source, you will see that Sufi isn't there despite it being visible in the main panel. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::I was not removing content on a POV basis. I was removing it because it wasn't sourced and no evidence has been provided. We also know that it was added by a banned user so it should have been reversed straight away. You claimed that there were "many references" that Sufi is a school of divinity/theology. Not one source has been given. Go ahead and provide the evidence if you are so sure. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::Ok, first of all, any diff that I click on from before this one, has no mention of sufi anywhere. Not only that, but any diff from before content is added will not have content that was added at a later diff from the one you are viewing. So I'm sure where you're getting "n desktop mode the template itself always displays Sufi for all historic edits even for edits where I explicitly removed Sufi" from, especially since three other editor are saying that they see "Sufi" in this diff. Also, it is not on me to prove the consensus founded version, seeing as you keep arguing the content was added by a "blocked editor", yet you have yet to provide one diff that proves so. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::Look, do you see Sufi in this edit where I explicitely removed it . Yes or no. That is my point, Sufi is listed even for historic edits where it was definitely removed. If you check mobile view or the source you will see that Sufi is not there.
:::::::I'll list the diff once again for Sufi being added by a blocked user as you ignored it the last time. Here it is it was added on the 17th Dec. The burden of proof is on you to show why an unsourced, unreferenced edit by a banned user should be added. To date you have provided zero sources for your claim that Sufi is a school of divinity despite making the claim earlier that there were "many references". This link explains why historic versions of the template are not displayed when you look at the edit history. This would explain why Sufi is displayed in the history even when it was not in the source. If you check the source of the historic version of the article you will see for sure that Sufi was added by the banned user on Dec 17th. It did not exist before then. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::Once again, if was added on December 17th by a supposedly blocked editor, why has been confirmed by 3 different editors to be on this revision dated from April 15, as well as any diff I pull up from after April 15 (excluding diff where the content in question was removed)? Such as this diff from June 21, 2015, or this diff from May 19, 2015, or this diff from August 10. Here is the diff immediately proceeding the diff you keep quoting where the edit was supposedly added by blocked editor ], with 'sufi' included in the template. I'm pinging back a few unrelated editors ({{yo|Cmr08}} {{yo|Severo}}) to confirm 'sufi' is on all the diffs I just provided. Also, can you please follow the spacing sequence when adding responses. Those are the colons (:) before every comment. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::All the diffs you provided are historic versions of the template. As I mentioned in my last note historic versions of templates are permanent links. Permanent links do not necessarily maintain historic versions of templates. Read for an explanation. If you want to see what was included in a historic version of the template then you need to click "view source" for that historic version. Eg gives you the source for the one I edited. Note that the source doesn't have Sufi in it despite the fact that the display of the historic version . As I mentioned before Sufi was added in by the banned user Destroyer10. It was unsourced, unreferenced and no discussion took place regarding it. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{od}} Oh, I see what you are trying to say now. I'm really sorry, and you're absolutely one hundred percent correct. I also do not see 'sufi' in the source for the template before the December 17th edit. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
*I do not see how these reverts should be exempt from 3R. However, if Freeatlast is guilty of edit warring, so is the IP, even setting aside the actual 3R count. Moreover, I think it is particularly deceitful of the IP to edit from these different addresses, practically baiting Freeatlast into edit warring. I mean, 213.205.198.201, 213.205.251.204, 84.13.168.43 saw the same person editing, and I frown on that kind of behavior.<p>Now, which edit came first, which version was the "original" version, that's exciting but not the only thing that matter: there's BRD as well. Oh, it's breakfast time. ] (]) 14:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::{{AN3|p}} – by ] for four days. Please use the talk page to resolve the disagreement. ] (]) 14:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I use my mobile phone to edit. IP addresses change all the time on a phone. If you are unaware about that then perhaps you should read up on it before you accuse others of being deceitful. I don't give a toss about blocking others. I didn't request that. I do care about the fact that this template has plainly wrong information which was never sourced or discussed and was added by a banned user. I have added a comment on the talk page stating that there is no proof that Sufi is a school of theology. I'll wait 5 days for others to provide evidence. I can tell you now that nothing worthwhile will be provided and then we can all make the change that I made in the first place. 5 minutes of work has become 5 days. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*I am aware of that, thank you very much, and I still think it's deceitful to not even acknowledge that. Even when editing via a mobile phone--I do this all the time--one can leave edit summaries, in which you could have explained what is now taking days and involves a half a dozen editors and three administrators. Clearly you are capable of filing a report here from your mobile phone, typing reams of text. ] (]) 16:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


] seems to be making a mistake here as several of those edits were of different content. You can't just list every single revert and call it edit warring. And the brief edit warring that did happen stopped as I realized I was reverting the wrong thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1270879523 ] (]) 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
No, I didn't file the report here - somebody else did. I have never even been on an admin page before. I did supply edit summaries (albeit brief) but the only response I got was that it was vandalism. In fact it took me numerous messages to convince others that I was not a vandal. Editors should be given the benefit of the doubt. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*OK, I see that--sorry. But listen, that benefit of the doubt cuts both ways, which is why edit warring is such a difficult infraction to deal with. As far as I'm concerned you're both guilty of edit warring; Freeatlast should have known better (KNOWN WHAT??? easy: edit warring is edit warring even if you're right) and you should have...well, I outlined that above. Both of you should have stopped and sought the talk page. I believe you are not a vandal, but I do not like this unacknowledged IP hopping. ] (]) 17:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::]: I said what you already said multiple times! Thanks for repeating that. Moreover, ] is clearly violated by both of them as you see. ] (]) 20:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I know, {{U|Mhhossein}}, I know... But what to do about it? The article is now protected from their disruption, and we're not supposed to make punitive blocks. Cases like these, one wonders: should one block just to try and get the point across? It's like spanking--does it work? I don't know, and I will leave it to a real admin, like {{U|EdJohnston}}. In the meantime, I believe it's time for some tea. Thank you for your comment, ] (]) 20:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Thank you ] for your attention. I also noticed your tips and thank you again for that. Editors involved in this thread were probably lucky enough to have their case investigated by you. Anyway, my concern is about a "trend" not a "mistake" and I know you are well aware what I mean. ] (]) 06:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}


:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked) ==
::@] 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) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Undertaker}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|SethAdam99}}


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}}
Previous version 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:
#
#
#
#


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# {{diff|oldid=1271008210|diff=1271008905|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
## {{diff2|1271008695|06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
## {{diff2|1271008905|06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1271007344|06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1271006989|06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
#


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- 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 -->
# {{diff2|1271008376|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|1271010383|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
] has also had several warnings for disruptive editing. ]<font color="Salmon">'''♥'''</font>] 02:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
:As well as a final warning for pretending to be an admin on his user page. ] (]) 02:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 14:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Page: {{pagelinks|Indo-Pakistani War of 1971}}
*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)
;Page: {{pagelinks|List of converts to Hinduism from Islam}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Capitals00}}


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


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|68.150.205.46}}
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
{{diff2|703728178}}
{{diff2|703375138}}
{{diff2|696021269}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
List of converts:
# {{diff|oldid=1271015536|diff=1271021273|label=Consecutive edits made from 08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1271020237|08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
## {{diff2|1271021017|08:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
## {{diff2|1271021273|08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1271014641|07:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "there is no consensus in talk. there is no government election today that uses your exact Droop. it is not what Droop says his quota was"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
{{diff2|701441051}}


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


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971:
# {{diff2|1270714484|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ reply to Quantling"
# {{diff2|1270714531|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit reply to Quantling"
# {{diff2|1270714949|22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ addition"
# {{diff2|1270715070|22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit addition"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
- Here is a survey that was discussed in depth.


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)
- Here is also a lengthy discussion that concluded Bangladesh should be included.


:{{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)
- Attempt at Mediation, which did not receive any response.
::Thanks, I missed that (I didn't notice the last edit was a self-revert). ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:68.150.205.46, thanks for self-reverting. Can you agree not to re-add the same material until a real consensus is found? An ] could help. ] (]) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely) ==
{{diff2|705970658}}


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


'''Previous version reverted to:''' ]
- Extremely lengthy discussion spanning for literally months.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
- Once again, an other long attempt to try and resolve the issue.
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]


- And finally, another very long attempt to try and resolve the issue.


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


{{diff2|703885771}}
{{diff2|703785411}}


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] (from User:Farshwal themselves)
;<u>Comments:</u>


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
] has engaged in extremely disruptive editing behavior. He fails to respond to requests for his justifications for his edits, however has a history of POV revisions and edits. He fails to heed to consensus, but rather, after consensus is established, he often brings about a whole new set of sources, which are often not reliable and engages in disruptive editing practices which are not helpful. He was requested to try and solve the dispute for ] through mediation, however, he did not respond to attempts to try and get this resolved. He reverted a strong consensus established by users ], ], myself and others in the ]. ] (]) 02:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
*One of the '''Most''' disruptive users I have run across in the said genre. He refuses any form of third party resolution initiatives and then edit wars to keep his POV in the text. I wanted to report him a while ago but I thought that with enough ] he will be hanging himself soon enough, or perhaps changing his ways. It is kinda sad that he has chosen the former. ] (]) 03:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
::I have for his recent reverts at ]. There was a previous RfC. He was also offered mediation but he didn't accept it. ] (]) 03:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Xtremedood has no sources to prove his wording. '''Current consensus is not to mention''' "bangladeshi" victory, because Bangladesh had no victories in any of the battles that they fought, it is not supported by any sources. There was a "truce" from Kautilya3, so that Xtremedood could stop edit warring with {{U|Human3015}}. But once I proved that there was no Bangladeshi victory, no one happened to revert me or argue against it, except Xtremedood and it took him over 45 days to return to edit warring. Very soon {{U|Ghatus}} disagreed with Xtremedood as well. Can Xtremedood find some editor other than himself who has opposed my edits? There can be no mediation if you don't even have sources to support your ]. That's why I disregarded his forum shopping because everyone else on this article has been opposed to Xtremedood. ] (]) 06:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@ ] if your blatant untruth (what is one supposed to call a lie btw, without offending someone) that '''Current consensus is not to mention''' "bangladeshi" victory seems to be contradicted by an RFC, which is not even stall enough to be archived. So I hang my head in shame at this kind of vandalism. ] (]) 07:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
::RFC was already superseded by consensus and '''sources''' at ]. Something that you really don't have to offer. Why there was resumption of edit warring by Xtremedood who can't find any sources? We don't put opinions of a selected user, but what really source say. ] (]) 08:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
:::@] the compromise at ] is '''"decisive victory of India and Bangladesh" '''. I am not sure why you are being so ignorant. Did you even read the TP? ] (]) 08:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
::::I don't see Ghatus agreeing with the edits of Xtremedood or anyone opposing my explanation which is '''backed with sources''' except Xtremedood. That's how, all I see is that there was a temporary compromise in order to stop the disruptive edit warring of Xtremedood. Now situation is getting worse because you are wikihounding for fun and violating ]. ] (]) 08:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::@] that is because the majority agrees on the edits. Human3015, Kautliya and Xtreme agree on the edit. And so do I now. You seem to be fixated on this issue and have made it into a personal battle. If you want to change consensus try mediation or another RFC. Otherwise learn to accept consensus this is not a ] ] (]) 09:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::No one agrees with the edits of Xtremedood, if they do, then why they don't revert me or show any opposition, why they only revert Xtremedood and oppose him on talk page? All I see is him forumshopping everywhere for pov pushing, where as you are just disruptively wikihounding on numerous articles, '''you don't have sources''' either. ] (]) 09:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - :::Xtremedood is by far the only one on this article who has been edit warring and trying to push his pseudohistorical thoughts that are not confirmed by facts. I also agree that Freeatlastchitchat is only wikihounding, he don't know what the subjects or articles are actually about, he just go on anywhere his opponents have edited, he just want to take up battles with them. Furthermore, see , it is obvious that Xtremedood is edit warring on this article for about a year, and his sole aim is to disrupt the infobox. There was no Bangladeshi victory, look at the sources and tons of other sources, NO one say that it was any victory for Bangladesh. ] (]) 10:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
* {{AN3|d}} I see disruption and team-tagging reverts in the article. No signle editor overstepped 3RR strictly speaking. This means arbitration enforcement is your next stop, not here.] (]) 19:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely as ]) ==


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: OP indeffed) ==
;Previous version reverted to:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Bhanot}} <br />
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|DoctorWhoFan91}}
# {{diff2|706497358|17:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}} "I'll say it again: "Holocaust denier" is not an occupation. Please look up the definition. Also, this article states Graf is currently in Russia where he works as a translator. THAT is his occupation. A real occupation."
{{Comment}}Now what should I say, this reckless person has crossed all limits for three revert rule and spamming on user talk with thrustful comments , and he keeps bothering me repeatedly with the same fabricated nonsense. He keeps giving those mocking statements against me for commissioning an report and is persistently stuck on the same matter over and over again. I want him to be punished for his vile actions, and for the offensive things he has said in his statements, which had a bad influence on people. He is going to everyone’s talk pages
# {{diff2|706496634|17:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}} ""Holocaust Denier" is NOT an occupation. Please look up the definition of occupation! How can this page state he is a translator working in Russian and at the same time list his occupation as "holocaust denier"?"
# {{diff2|706487083|16:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=706152323|diff=706484085|label=Consecutive edits made from 16:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC) to 16:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|706483473|16:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}} "I've changed Holocaust denier to Holocaust revisionist. The word denier is used as an ad hominem because of its negative connotations. Moreover it is not accurate as Graf does not deny the events but instead revises them. "Denier" is an ideological word."
## {{diff2|706484085|16:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}} "I changed Holocaust denier in occupation to historian. "Holocaust denier" is not an occupation. It is also a ridiculous ad hominem to name a revisionist historian a denier. The occupation historian is more accurate description in this case."


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|706477586|15:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Our sourcing policy */ new section"
# {{diff2|706489300|16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|706490004|16:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
#
#
#
#




;<u>Comments:</u>


pov editor edit-warring removing "holocaust denier", material sourced to a high court judge, etc. ] ] 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*{{AN3|b|indefinitely as ]}} ] &#124; ] 18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Andrei Kobyakov}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ymblanter}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <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. -->


:I suspect a ] is coming here, but for now I'll say to OP, don't make personal attacks . Bafflingly, you linked to the NPA policy in the same edit summary. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 11:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned ) ==
<!-- 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:


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> The user does not appear to contest the claim he is removing (that Kobyakov served as Deputy PM from 2003 to 2010). Instead he is removing content because he thinks this is funny. Given the impression that he is not editing in good faith and is instead just engaged in petty vandalism, I'm asking for a longer than usual block here. ] (]) 19:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
:Not exactly adhering to ]. ] (]) 19:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# , using their IP, which is ]
: Since the user erased my warning from their talk page, may be some other administrator would repeat that they should drastically improve their communications skills. Stopping to revert good edits and finally reading the fucking manual would also help.--] (]) 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
#
::Do I need to provide a diff of the above comment or does it speak for itself? ] (]) 19:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
#
:::Wow, you're an administrator? How did I miss that? You're an administrator and you're cursing at me? ] (]) 19:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
#
::::Take a look at ] - "Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)". ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}. By my count, Ymblanter has made 3 reverts (your diff n:o 3 isn't a revert) and so have you, Curro2. I don't see a single contribution from either of you on the talkpage. I've protected the article for two days to encourage discussion. ] &#124; ] 20:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC).
::You're correct about #3, so he's only reverted three times but I have the right not to be cursed at. I'm also not sure what is in dispute. He has effectively conceded he was wrong on the substance. ] (]) 20:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Then perhaps it's your turn to concede you communicated badly? And nobody has cursed "at" you. As far as cursing ''in your presence'', you might as well get used to that if you want to edit the English Misplaced Pages. It's not an attack. If you seriously want to make something of that (personally I think you'd regret it), ] is the place, not AN3. It's altogether a rather poor idea to file complaints at this board when you're just as guilty of edit warring as the other party. ] &#124; ] 20:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC).
{{hat|reason=This does not belong here. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px maroon">-- ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup></span> 21:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}}
::::I forgot, administrators are allowed to break all the rules and there's no expectation of basic civility. Maybe that's why Misplaced Pages's yearly edit count goes down and down. Maybe that's why a sitting head of government had a stub page. ] (]) 20:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
{{ping|Curro2}}, you're definitely not imagining what you just described. ] has a history of talking down on other editors because he is an administrator and he thinks that he can get away with whatever arbitrary reverts he makes, including in cases where there is nothing at fault stylistically or procedurally. It is a clear case of following ], which he obviously denies and refuses to discuss, instead issuing threats of administrative sanctions. If he does it, its considered administration, if we do it, its "disruptive". We're powerless and he knows it.--] (]) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: protected) ==


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Utah}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ScrapIronIV}}


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


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


*Wamalotpark is edit warring with multiple editors across multiple articles, and are making the same edits .-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
*The charge is obviously correct. ], I reverted you because no advantage should go to the edit warrior. If you revert again you will be blocked. The logged-out editing is another matter, a more serious matter, and as it happens I can see just how much of it you have been doing. You should stop doing that esp. if, as you did here, you seem to be doing it to avoid scrutiny, because it's abusive and you are going to get blocked for it. ] (]) 00:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
this is not strictly a WP:3RR, but this single editor refuses to enter a dialog with 5 other editors that are of the same mind. i don't know what else to do but attempt to get an admin to intervene.


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hindi–Urdu controversy}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Augmented Seventh}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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 -->
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271341767&oldid=1269162140
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271342146&oldid=1271341767
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271342693&oldid=1271342146
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271346369&oldid=1271342693
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271384695&oldid=1271346369
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271389468&oldid=1271384695


we've tried to resolve via talk page, but warring editor refuses to discuss the dispute in the talk page, and is at odds with 5 other editors and counting..not sure what else to do:


]


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


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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271423082&oldid=1271392849
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
] (]) 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAugmented_Seventh&diff=1271428457&oldid=1271428288
No violation of 3RR, and frankly, the controversial edit is properly sourced, and no editors have given a policy based reason to remove it. That's not to say that we ''should'' report that Utahians are the largest consumers of paid internet porn in the USA. -] ] 20:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*Completely frivolous claim; only two of those reverts (restoring sourced content) were within a 24 hour period. Even if all three were within a 24 hour period, it would not breach ]. OP was unilaterally removing long standing, sourced content, without either starting a requested RfC or 3O request. A consensus is being formed against its inclusion, and I will abide by that - as I abide by all consensus decisions. OP should be warned what constitutes edit warring. I gave no additional input, because the user kept making the same ] claims and asking the same questions, over and again, after I had already responded. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 20:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


The article in question presents one-sided information, and that too sometimes using unsourced and questionable sources. The language Urdu is part of the Pakistani identity, and this article does not engage with the perspectives of Pakistanis who argue that the language Urdu has its own identity, distinct from Hindi. It's culturally insensitive to dismiss the cultural identity of another community and dismiss their perspecitives entirely to push one-sided claims that only serve to undermine their identity.
::this is not a 3RR issue, it's an edit war issue: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle." scrapiron won't discuss the issue, and clearly is in the minority against a consensus of editors. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*{{AN3|nv}} ] (]) 01:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::Left CTOPS notice on talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Every edit I made was policy based, as opposed to a bunch of ] and ] excuses. Unilaterally removing sourced content could easily be construed as vandalism. It's not about "winning" to me, it's about maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia and its processes. And, please, learn how to sign your comments, as you have been told by others. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 20:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

::::sorry - i'm obviously new to[REDACTED] and don't know all the rules. this page had an obvious mistake in my mind (and it's now obvious to 5 other editors) and so i made a change, and i additionally posted in the talk page to see if everyone was okay with the change. we had an extremely unsatisfying brief discussion that simply made no sense to me, and so i sued for further discussion. you ignored my posts and so i hoped a 3rd opinion would appear, and it did. i mistakenly thought this was the same as the 3O rule, but i was wrong. i then did a formal 3O, and then several more editors chimed in all supporting the edit. at that stage you still wouldn't engage in the talk page, and i just wasn't sure what else to do except appeal to this board. again, i apologize for my clumsy navigation of the processes, but i'm trying to learn and contribute. ] (]) 21:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::I will only interject to note that it's very hard to construct this as "unilateral removal of sourced content" and consequently vandalism: there is a debate in progress with several opinions (now including mine) bringing forth a somewhat compelling ]ness objection to the material. Just because something has a "ref" tag on it doesn't make it immune from scrutiny and possible redaction. ] (]) 21:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

::::::The "debate" didn't start until today, those opinions are after my communication and restoration of the content. When this started, it was just the OP, and me, and I suggested that they start an RfC or a 3O request - rather than the OP and I just disagreeing back and forth. I also told them at that time that it stays at the status quo until a new consensus is reached. It's as simple as that. Clearly they are an inexperienced editor. I don't mind getting rid of the content, I don't care what Utah does with its spare time. What it needed was scrutiny and consensus - not just a new editor coming in and deleting it. 21:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:::::::Well, it's getting scrutiny now, so it worked. It's just that vandalism accusations about removing something that smelled so strongly of ] seemed a tad far-fetched, and I thought it worthwhile to point it out. ] (]) 21:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
{{od|7}} {{nao}} While both users could have handled this a bit better (more talking, and less reverting), I think that nothing is really going to happen here (on this noticeboard anyway). A discussion with no real (serious) edit warring makes this report moot. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px maroon">-- ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup></span> 21:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
*{{AN3|pe}} --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 02:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Youth Time}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Programsyt}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , . Reverts 5 and 6 were after 3RR warning. User began edit-warring again after 24 hours.

<!-- 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: ''et sequelae''. Three of the four editors whom the reported user has reverted are participating. The reported user has not participated despite requests to do so. See also Conflict of interest/Noticeboard .

<u>Comments:</u> <br /> There may also be socking involved. The previous edit-warring was by ], a paid editor, who had changed their name from the very similar '''{{noredirect|User talk:Ytprograms|Ytprograms}}'''. ] (]) 15:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

*They have been blocked for 31 hours by ] following a report to AIV after blanking the article. ] (]) 16:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
* Programsyt is now just blanking the article:
::
::
:and was by Drmies for 31 hours for Disruptive editing. ] (]) 16:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
::{{AN3|b}} – 31 hours by ]. If this behavior continues a longer block is possible. The new editor ] doesn't seem to be taking any advice. A similar account, ], has been renamed to ], who is not currently blocked. ] (]) 17:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
:::More accounts related to ] are now blocked per ]. ] (]) 22:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocks, Protection) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Carl Rinsch}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Websoftnew}}

<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#
# - note, done via a sock account
#
#
#


<!-- 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 />

User was approaching 3RR the other day and, having been warned, created a sock for the next attempt, and was ]. Returned to edit warring for same material less than half a day after sock block had run out. At least four users have undone his reversions, and his most recent edit comment, "(i am not going to leave it for sure .... will fight for this information because this is genuine and explained in a better way)" makes it clear that he intends to continue in this manner. --] (]) 18:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

*{{AN3|note}} Page fully protected, and user blocked 72 hrs by {{u|Courcelles}}. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px maroon">-- ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup></span> 21:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
::{{AN3|p}} – 2 weeks by ]. Two accounts blocked as described in ]. ] (]) 22:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

== IP hopper (see below for user IPs) reported by ] (Result: Rangeblock) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Devin Durrant}} <br />
'''User being reported:'''

* {{userlinks|2605:a601:56e:df01:ac93:933d:f57d:690c}}
* {{userlinks|2605:a601:510:fc01:c107:aeb3:42cb:181b}}
* {{userlinks|2605:a601:510:fc01:55af:15aa:b48a:6641}}
* {{userlinks|2605:a601:510:fc01:6c44:fc49:c515:5ba7}}
* {{userlinks|2605:a601:510:fc01:44e6:67c5:ba9a:b9f5}}
* {{userlinks|2605:a601:510:fc01:adbf:3cb7:3fe:627f}}
* {{userlinks|2605:a601:510:fc01:11d9:eaa0:8381:a78e}}
* {{userlinks|2605:a601:510:fc01:8851:4a7c:bd5c:44f5}}
* {{userlinks|2605:a601:510:fc01:d521:7236:53bc:ca4b}}
* {{userlinks|2605:a601:510:fc01:507a:e957:ec2:d7a6}}

All the above IPs are registered to the same address and edit summaries support this being the same person.

* Edits/reverts: - mainly linked to reverts of the IP's additions in order to show user's reasons for reverting as well as IP's comments
* Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
* See also: ]
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
I've reported this here instead of ] in attempt to maintain the assumption of good faith.

This anon repeatedly adds content that has multiple issues to the same page - but the issue isn't so much the edit as the complete refusal to engage in any kind of communication about the changes. Their edit summaries show that they understand what an edit summary is for, and their comment on the BLP noticeboard shows that they've read other users' edit summaries (which include requests to discuss on the talk page), but their continued refusal to communicate indicates that they either don't understand the messages or are just ignoring them.

In short, this anon may be trying to edit the article in good faith, but instead is just causing endless disruption. They made the while I was creating this report, which I haven't reverted because that would take me over 3RR, and I'm trying really hard to keep assuming good faith even though part of me thinks this has stepped over the line into straight-out vandalism.

At present, there's no way to resolve the edit war because this anon won't communicate. I'm going to notify them of this discussion on every single IP talk page in another attempt to get their attention, but given past precedent, I highly doubt they'll respond. ]] 21:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Set a rangeblock for two weeks on 2605:a601:510:fc01::/64. This should cover all IPs except the first one listed. A person should not use a fluctuating IP to conduct edit wars. ] (]) 22:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|My House (Flo Rida song)}} <br /> {{pagelinks|My House (EP)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|108.250.37.230}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

<!-- 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:
* I've told him several times to stop edit warring and that ] co-produced the song. It's just some random ip address who does nothing but vandalize that song's page and it's accompanying EP page.

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
<small>Cleaned up report <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px maroon">-- ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup></span> 21:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)</small>
:{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours. ] (]) 23:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|David Ortiz}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Jkaradell}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=706748761|diff=706750946|label=Consecutive edits made from 02:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC) to 02:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|706749986|02:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 706748761 by ] (])"
## {{diff2|706750034|02:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 706749986 by ] (])"
## {{diff2|706750946|02:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)}} "I don't care what the metadata is it's a lousy picture of him. I've been maintaining this page every day for 10 years. I've practically written the entire page. Go through the history to see. Then you drop in one day and decide you're in charge."
# {{diff2|706741725|01:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)}} "It's s a "fact" that it's better quality. I don't see any better quality in that picture. The picture sucks and I'm not the only one that thinks so. I wasnt the one that changed it back months ago you really sound like you've been saved. Go fuck yourself"
# {{diff2|706670285|16:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Bro, Sorry but that 2014 picture sucks. The picture of him pointing to his mother in heaven after a HR is better. That's Papi's signature. The picture doesn't have to be recent. A lot of player pages have pictures of their younger days in their infobox."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|706694025|19:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)}} "/* David Ortiz */ new section"
# {{diff2|706748770|02:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on ]. (])"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|706749389|02:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Infobox image */ new section"

;<u>Comments:</u>

This user has made a total of five reverts regarding the infobox image on David Ortiz's page, and also made a personal attack against me by telling me to "go fuck" myself. I explained my rationale to them about why I would prefer to use the image I have reverted to, and I stopped reverting after the third time. On the other hand, this user's only rationale behind the image they keep reverting to is their personal opinion that the other image "sucks." They need to understand that Misplaced Pages is built on ], not ], but they have also been unwilling to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Also, their most recent revert is ] of the article. ] (]) 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:46, 24 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: First edit to change the capitalization

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

    Page: Hindi–Urdu controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Augmented Seventh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271341767&oldid=1269162140
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271342146&oldid=1271341767
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271342693&oldid=1271342146
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271346369&oldid=1271342693
    5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271384695&oldid=1271346369
    6. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hindi–Urdu_controversy&diff=1271389468&oldid=1271384695



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

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

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

    Comments:

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

    Left CTOPS notice on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic