Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:50, 13 December 2018

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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.

User:Light Millennia reported by User:Thinker78 (Result: Full protection for 1 week )

Page: Great power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Light Millennia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

Comments:

I tried warning the editor but they just removed the warning and reverted once again hours later. I warned the other editor involved and they, unlike the editor at hand, seemed to accept the message and apologized. I am uninvolved in the disputed edits. Thinker78 (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: The 3RR only applies once a day (I think). And it's been three days... Light Millennia (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

First diff: Revision as of 23:58, 8 December 2018; last diff: Latest revision as of 19:30, 9 December 2018. That are five reverts in 24 hours (if my count is right). Note there was similar edit war involving the very same editor just a month ago (the article was shortly protected back then). Pavlor (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pavlor: I was referring to the total amount of time, though all this seems very confusing to me. When I asked Tide rolls, they replied that the 3RR is simply a bright line established to determine disruption. Anyway, I don't feel like it's even relevant anymore since the discussion has now finally been moved from the article to its talk page (per my request). Light Millennia (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Light Millennia If another editor posts a notice in your talk page you shouldn't just remove it but should try to find out for sure what's going on, try talking with the editor who posted the notice in the first place, that way you can clarify things before getting reported here. It looks like you don't really know how it works. If you revert more than 3 times in a single 24-hour period you are violating the rule. I don't understand what you mean with "it only applies once a day", but apparently you got some info wrong. Thinker78 (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverts continue: , . This time it is more subtle, but general pattern is still there - this editor removes any change that doesn´t suit his idea of the article. I tried discussing this, I even thought we reached some sort of consensus. Well, apparently editor in question thinks "consensus" is only his POV. I don´t see any reason to edit further the article or continue discussion with this editor (I will not indulge myself in pointless edit-warring). If that means his ownership of the article, so be it. Pavlor (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pavlor: I don't appreciate when you re-phrase my edits to claim things that are not included in the sources (e.g. false distinctions/connections like "in the context of" and "similar views exist also about "). Please read WP:original research. Light Millennia (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have reverted the article back to the version before the edit warring started on 8 Dec and fully protected it for 1 week. ~ GB fan 18:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:SportsFan007 reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: User:UBX/MLB-Rangers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:UBX/NFL-Giants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:UBX/NBA-Nets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Las Vegas Aviators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), among others
User being reported: SportsFan007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 11:40, 10 December 2018, 11:54, 10 December 2018, 12:47, 10 December 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:52, 10 December 2018
2. 12:01, 10 December 2018
3. 12:43, 10 December 2018
4. 12:52, 10 December 2018
5. 02:05, 10 December 2018
6. 03:13, 10 December 2018
7. 12:58, 10 December 2018 (third revert on the same page in less than 24 hours)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:07, 10 December 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 11:53, 10 December 2018

Comments: The reported user is constantly reverting colors in the user boxes to his preferred version and ignores what is written to him. I tried to write him what is wrong at User talk:SportsFan007#MOS:ACCESSS, but it seems he just does not seem to care. Additionally, Charlesaaronthompson wrote about the issue in his edit summaries at Template:Las Vegas Aviators, but got reverted without any explanation as the reported user does not use edit summaries at all. I want to also point out that the reported user has already been blocked four times for edit warring as can be seen at his block log. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: I already apologized and reverted all my changes that you didn’t revert. SportsFan007 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

@Sabbatino: I never said I didn’t care, and I apologize If I did anything that implied it, and you were being too vague in your explanation and I was having a very hard time understand what you were referring to. and they way in which you are talking to me was coming off a bit insensative. SportsFan007 (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

I now understand to keep colors/colours compliant with MOS:ACCESS, meaning that the colors have to be in a way that people who are color/colour blind can easily read what’s written. Thank you for this lesson and I’m sorry I had to learn it the hard way. SportsFan007 (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

• Warned @SportsFan007: you've been blocked four times for edit warring, and unblocked once already with a "final warning". I think you should understand well by now that edit warring is not allowed. Do not allow yourself to get reported at this board again, or it is very likely you will find yourself blocked indefinitely. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I told SportsFan on WT:WikiProject Football#Major League Soccer team infoboxes that you really shouldn't mess with colours you went and did it anyway? That doesn't seem smart at all. Govvy (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:SaifulAlam309 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page

Hermes Trismegistus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

SaifulAlam309 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC) "/* Hermetic writings */"
2. 17:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 11:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 11:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Hermes Trismegistus. (TW)"
2. 19:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hermes Trismegistus. (TW)"
3. 19:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Emerald Tablet. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Failure to communicate and insistence on adding unsourced or poorly sourced material at two articles suggests to me that an indefinite block may be needed, if not now, later. Doug Weller talk 07:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Sockmaster also blocked. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:DigbyDalton reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: blocked)

Page: V8 engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DigbyDalton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A broadly pretty minor wording issue, re the popularity of early V8 engines in France.

1. ""
2. "not popular in passenger cars. Race cars. And France had no airplanes until 1908."
3. " Who keeps changing this? The V8 was NOT popular in France in passenger cars, in fact it was extremely rare. It was only used in race cars."
4. "Stop editing this if you don't know anything about cars. It was not "popular" in France, there were no production V-8 automobiles anywhere in the world until 1914. Race cars and airplanes only. Get it? Stop editing."
5. "No, it says popular. It was not popular, which means cars. STOP EDITING, used in race cars in 1904, and it was never used in any aircraft in France in 1908. Never POPULAR!!! The first French airplane was 1908 and it didn't have a V8."

Brought up on the article talk: here: Talk:V8 engine#Digby's latest edits, but ignored (two more reversions since).

Given their abusive and dismissive tone to other editors, and poor past experience of dealing with this editor, I doubt that much will be achieved, hence ANEW.

• User talk:Andy Dingley#Rocker arms and Overhead valve engine
• Talk:V8 engine#V8 harder to crank than less number of cylinders
•  Administrator note: reported user has not edited since being warned. I'm not confident, though, since they've been editing for a decade and ought to know that edit warring is not allowed by now. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, he's returned:

6. "Well "popular" sure doesn't mean limited to race cars." to repeat the same edit-warring

and also "You must be out of your mind." in response to the user_talk: warning. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. It's pretty brazen to respond to a warning about edit warring, a notice that you're been reported to the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring, and an administrator repeating the warning on that noticeboard, by continuing to edit war and throwing a personal attack into the mix. They'll need to convince someone they won't keep it up before they'll be allowed to edit again. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 00:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Wasteman1000 reported by User:Bondegezou (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wasteman1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Note also similar reverts over a longer period:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
A long list of potential candidates was removed after discussion on Talk in August. There has been some ongoing discussion about that since on Talk, and of late no clear consensus perhaps either way, for or against inclusion of the list. Wasteman1000 has repeatedly tried re-adding the same list (unchanged, with no attempt to address discussed issues or evolve the material) and has been reverted by multiple other editors. Until today, despite suggestions and warnings, Wasteman1000 would not engage in any Talk page discussion. Until today, Wasteman1000's edit-war was a slow motion affair, but he's hit four reverts in the last 24 hours. Bondegezou (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely. Edit warring aside, this is obviously somebody's sockpuppet. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Pato Lukassss reported by User:Impru20 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Next United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pato Lukassss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

User has kept on the edit warring even after this report was filed:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Discussion has been attempted at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election#Theresa may, but the user basically ignores discussion and keeps with the edit warring despite repeated warnings (only edit was to say they were just "started editing", but they continued with the EW thereafter nonetheless despite reverts by multiple users). Impru20 20:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the new editor's changes to the article. But, I disagree with his/her forcing that change, when there's currently no consensus for that change. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Iaicanwin reported by User:Ifnord (Result: )

Page

Tablighi Jamaat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Iaicanwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 19:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC) "when ever the name of Prophet Muhammed appears (may peace be upon him) has to be recited invariably.Hence edited .Regards"
3. 19:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC) "When ever Name of Prophet Muhammed appears ( may peace be upon him ) must be recited.therefore edited accordingly."
4. 19:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Tablighi Jamaat. (TW)"
2. 19:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tablighi Jamaat. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC) "/* No "PBUH" on Misplaced Pages */ new section"

Comments:

User:GoPhoenix1 reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Curt Cignetti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GoPhoenix1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

Comments:
User has twice reverted material following 3RR warning, and sought to remove this report. Further, judging by Talk page comments, user also appears to have a personal or professional involvement with the subject of the article. JohnInDC (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours - pro tip: blanking the AN3 report does not get you out of being blocked and will usually get you blocked more quickly and for longer. --B (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Removing the report did not seem like a good move. I thought I restored but it looks like someone beat me too it. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:36.232.207.225 reported by User:DPPTPP (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Battle of West Hunan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

36.232.207.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 873395531 by DPPTPP (talk)Please don't abuse IP, and I find that you often abuse IP. Like 205.173.47.252 , 67.188.179.66 or 2600:387:6:800::/60 Please talk in https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents)"
2. 22:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 873394549 by DPPTPP (talk)Please don't abuse IP, and I find that you often abuse IP. Like 205.173.47.252 , 67.188.179.66 or 2600:387:6:800::/60 Please talk in https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents"
3. 22:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 873393970 by DPPTPP (talk)Please don't abuse IP, and I find that you often abuse IP. Like 205.173.47.252 , 67.188.179.66 or 2600:387:6:800::/60 Please talk in https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Persistant removal of source. DPPTPP (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_IP_abuser_-_DPPTPP

I reported the users anomalous behavior there, including keeping my spelling mistakes https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=CIA_Tibetan_program&type=revision&diff=873395489&oldid=873395215 through the editing war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.207.225 (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked The IP was blocked for block evasion (and their subsequent IPs have also been blocked) and DPPTPP was blocked by a checkuser. How's that for resolved? Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Lordtobi reported by User:BLDM (Result: No action)

Page: Tesla, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lordtobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Previously discussed a similar issue with the user: "Overlink"

Comments:
Reverts are on two different pieces of content, so this is just a 3RR violation. BLDM (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure what to say. First of all I linked to the guideline that goes strictly against one of the diffs you, as well as the IP user, made, namely WP:OVERLINK: The founders should not be linked twice in the infobox. For some reason, you claimed that there was consensus for purposely overlinking in the infobox, but there isn't. We previously had a chat about this because you kept removing links from the infobox on the grounds that they were already linked in the lead (not the infobox), clearly those are not the same thing.

After that edit, you proceeded to use my point ("don't link twice") as means to justify the unlinking of Palo Alto, even though Palo Alto is only mentioned once in the entire infobox. I reverted you for obvious invalid rationale. In one case, you clearly overlinked, while in the other, you underlinked; I'd be applying WP:STATUSQUO or guideline-based reverts (counting out two of your invalid rationales), so 3RR doesn't apply. Otherwise, any vandal I'm reverting on a daily basis could have me blocked. Lordtobi (✉) 23:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You might need to take another look at the list of exemptions, but I could be wrong.

As for the issue in the last two reverts, check the image caption in the infobox. BLDM (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, in that case the second part is indeed on me, apologies. I removed the offending content. Lordtobi (✉) 23:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since Lordtobi reverted their last change. I'm hoping this is on the way to resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:220.245.208.179 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page

Frankfurt School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

220.245.208.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 873513409 by IanDBeacon (talk) Changes made, as per talk. Please see my talk thread before ANY FURTHER EDITS. Citation and source needs heavy review and WP:CW."
2. 15:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 873512518 by Jackfork (talk) Changes made, as per talk."
3. 15:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 873512300 by Jackfork (talk) Please discuss on talk before further reverts."
4. 15:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC) "Stop reverting without citing anything (not even policy in the summary???) if you wish to revert, cite actual sources for the "Cultural Marxism" theory on TALK. Be WP:POLITE, have the discussion, do the work. Stop WP:TEND this is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:SOAPBOX. Cite sources or policy. Justify your actions/edits or DONT DO THEM."
5. 15:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 873510196 by EvergreenFir (talk) - WP:SALT, WP:CSD, WP:CCC and WP:RS are all valid reasons for blanking. Stop trying to preserve salted content."
6. 15:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC) "Blanked as non notable, please, if you revert this change - PLEASE cite appropriate sources for the existence of "Cultural Marxism" on TALK."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Frankfurt School. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• ]

Comments:

This IP is removing content from article and reverting other editors. There is a discussion on the article's talkpage too. IanDBeacon (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

IP user was also reported to WP:AIV and indef semi protection requests made at WP:RPP by myself and another RGloucester . EvergreenFir (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by Black Kite. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Sixit reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: article, talk page

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Article:

1. - 10 Dec
2. - 13 Dec, 9:47 EST
3. - 13 Dec, 11:08 EST
4. - 13 Dec, 11:19 EST

Talk page:

1. - 13 Dec, 11:10 EST
2. - 13 Dec, 11:12 EST

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not 3rr specifically but edit warring in general. Multiple sources have been pointed to on the talk page, more raised, he raises none but argues that because none of us were alive then we don't know and reverts despite having no consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson reported by User:Sixit (Result: Retaliatory filing, Sixit blocked )

Page: Baphomet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baphomet&oldid=872952088

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baphomet&diff=873180431&oldid=872952088
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baphomet&diff=873510546&oldid=873506132
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baphomet&diff=873516390&oldid=873516289

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Baphomet&diff=873514220&oldid=852531697
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Baphomet&diff=873516757&oldid=873516740
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Baphomet&diff=873517845&oldid=873517121
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Baphomet&diff=873519643&oldid=873517845

Comments:

Ian.thomson repeatedly violated the NPOV by adding the watchword "falsely". This is unsubstantiated conjecture and conclusory. In the talk page, Ian.thomson became abusive, which I deleted and he reinstated, and continued to use conjecture and bias. The proper place for both of these is a separate section devoted to theories behind the accusations. We know they were accused. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not the accusations were based in fact. Because no records were kept of the secret meetings held by the Templars, no one knows for certain what occurred in those meetings. What we do know for certain is that "falsely" is a conclusion - one that cannot be substantiated, and based on conjecture. The article is already on shaky ground for NPOV; adding "falsely" puts it solidly in violating NPOV. The irony, of course, is that Ian.thomson placed on my use rtalkpage information regarding NPOV, so he knows better.

On the NPOV Misplaced Pages page, we have this: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." As a result, editor consensus is unnecessary, and maintaining NPOV is an exception to the WP:3RR policy.

Sixit (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sixit: Your claim that maintaining NPOV is an exception to the WP:3RR policy is both ironic and false. See WP:NOT3RR for valid exceptions. You are the one inserting artificial balance against the majority of mainstream sources, which is a violation of NPOV. As the sources I've pointed to indicate, all mainstream historians will say that we know damn well that there was no Baphomet idol -- the few instances where Baphomet was mentioned were either politically motivated accusations or torture-induced agreement, everyone who hadn't already been executed by Philip the Fair were transferred to the Hospitalers or retired peacefully, no idols were found in their treasuries (when all their possessions were transferred to other orders such as the Hospitalers), and the Pope's investigation absolved them of those accusations. While we don't exactly have video footage of the meetings, if there is no physical or reliable circumstantial evidence, the accusations had a clear political motivation, all contemporary independent parties ultimately concluded that it didn't happen, and all mainstream modern historians likewise say it didn't happen, it is nothing but conspiracy theorism to say that it might've happened. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sixit: What's more, the attempts at discussion you linked show that I'm doing all the work in trying to establish a consensus and you're doing nothing! Furthermore, you don't link to the status quo version of the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: This is an NPOV issue. Consensus isn't necessary. AGAIN I will point you to WP:Neutral_Point_Of_View. You'll note that it is not on WP:NOT3RR because NPOV supersedes 3RR. Please explain how I am introducing "artificial balance"? The fact that the Templars were accused is historical fact. None of your sources proves the accusations were false. The important word here is "proves", as the burden of proof is on you to show the accusations were false. Sixit (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Sixit blocked for disruptive editing, specifically disruptive behavior on the article talkpage and borderline edit-warring. @Sixit, NPOV does not supersede 3RR: if that was the case everybody could assert that they "win" by claiming their POV is the most neutral, and edit wars would be perpetual. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User: 71.12.61.136 reported by User:edmondfrairbrook (Result: )

Page: Zahra Karinshak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.12.61.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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:

Comments:
Wrong board. There's no edit warring here. The IP has not been undone by anyone, and a quick look at the edits does not show any other obvious issues.. Meters (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see no edit war being conducted by 71.12.61.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Zahra Karinshak, the only article that IP has edited, nor any edit warring there by anyone else. Please review the information at the top of this page and at WP:EW that explains what edit warring means. General Ization 20:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not edit warring, but something is suspect here. See this edit by the reporting user. This administrator is now actively monitoring the page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: )

Page

Skanderbeg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FkpCascais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Calthinus (talk) to last version by FkpCascais"
2. 21:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC) "Please don´t add unsourced content and dont remove sourced one. See talk-page, I brought many English-language sources"
3. 01:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC) "Rv unsourced edit. No source says he was Serbian or Bulgarian origin. Plenty sources claim Serbian origin, and one claims Bulgarian which btw doesnt mention "Nobiity""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

An admin fully-protected the article a few days ago and warned FkpCascais with a block in case he reverted again . Since the full-protection expired, FkpCascais has made 3 other reverts within a few hours. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring