Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 00:40, 22 January 2025

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.

Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.

Xuangzadoo (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

More reverts , can someone do something? - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected I also note the user has been alerted to CTOPS, which I protected the page under, so there will be no room for argument if this behavior continues. Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Noorullah21 reported by User:HerakliosJulianus (Result: No violation)

Page: Battle of Jamrud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Noorullah21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270112351 by Noorullah21 (talk): No it hasn't, they haven't even given their conclusion, and you again edited the page to revert it.."
2. 00:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270108346 by Noorullah21 (talk): No he doesn't, please take this to the talk page now to be more clear."
3. 23:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270099439 by Noorullah21: "where they too were saved by the arrival of substantial reinforcements.

Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving the Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimed the victory and was given a hero’s welcome. For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39" -Lee, (calls it a phyrric Afghan victory), and Hussain isn't on google scholars."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ new section"
2. 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Battle of Jamrud."
3. 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Battle of Jamrud."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
2. 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
3. 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
4. 01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
5. 01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
6. 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
7. 02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
8. 02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
9. 02:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"

Comments:

This is not the first time they are edit warring and breaking 3RR, they were previously warned by an admin . There seems to be a habit of them continuously misinterpreting the sources and pushing certain PoVs. They have opted for 3O by themselves but disagreed with the opinion given. Indo-Greek 12:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Im not that involved(haven’t reverted anybody, just made a comment on the talk page). As a word of advice because so many people seem to forget this fact, when your adding disputed content, ONUS is on you to attain consensus. Which hasn’t happened here.

“The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”

It seems that you yourself were also edit warring, except your the one who’s adding disputed content so per ONUS, you were never supposed to revert him to begin with. You need to wait until talk page discussions conclude and gain consensus. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

A. The instance you pointed out was an administrator warning me for one revert on the History of India page. (Talking to Indo-Greek, the person who reported and I had a dispute with here..)

B. When the individual hasn't concluded their WP:3O, you immediately reverted the page again saying they did. There's still a very open discussion with the user... (They've even edited the page most recently!.. I'd also like to remind you WP:3O is non binding even when the opinion is given, meaning whether they say either or is in the right.. the dispute can still continue until a Consensus can be made. The burden of proof is on you for WP:ONUS (you also kept readding a non WP:RS source.. (Farrukh Hussain). I pointed out WP:3O as a solution, and you keep reverting the page far before they've given their opinion. Lee... (this is now bringing the argument from the talk page here..) calls it a phyrric victory. Noorullah (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I also told said where per WP:ONUS, it's per them to seek Consensus. Noorullah (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted my edit as of now per the edit summary. (the last edit prior to that is the person working on our WP:3PO. Noorullah (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems like WP:TAGTEAM, but anyways. The admin had warned you for the same edit warring issue, not 1RR. You had asked for 3O which an editor eventually gave one quoting: I found a huge contradiction in your quote. You said "Nothing here calls the battle a Sikh victory," but the quote literally says "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans" which was later discarded by you which is fine, but if other editors accusing you for overlooking the source and found you contradicting yourself then you should have been more cautious rather than outrightly reverting my changes. Indo-Greek 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Have you not read the rest of the discussion..? the WP:3O is being discussed.

You've completely ignored this.

Scroll down! (on the talk page). Noorullah (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I also didn't violate the 3 revert rule. I didn't revert 4 times, I reverted 3 times. Although of course, this seems to be more inclined toward edit warring, which both of us did.

@Someguywhosbored has just jumped into the discussion (and they seem to be more in favor of my argument) -- per their most recent talk page msg on the battle of jamrud, which shows a growing consensus on my side? .. Nonetheless, I still find this report baseless. Noorullah (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Both of us did No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR, don't confuse it with WP:4RR. I also think that Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to? The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT. Indo-Greek 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What?

"No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR" -- Yes, I'm talking about myself.. I reverted 3 times, to break the 3rr rule, you have to revert more than three times (i.e 4 times) "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page" -- I also self reverted per the former.

"Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to?" -- He responded on the talk page (of the page), he responded here, and he also re-reverted the page.

"The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT." - Are you insinuating @Someguywhosbored is a Meatpuppet? Because you've drawn effectively numerous flanks into the air on what this report is really about.

A. In your edit summary you said the Third opinion was concluded.. (it wasn't.)

B. You report here for 3rr (when 3rr wasn't violated, and I'm assuming this is more inclined toward edit war..?)

C. You then throw around Meatpuppet accusations?

I'm sorry but there's no way this discussion is remaining civil anymore. Did you even read the Meatpuppet page? "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Misplaced Pages:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."

Flinging around accusations of Meatpuppetry clearly breaches Civility. Noorullah (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You also did revert it three times.. Shown here:

(First time)

(Second time)

(Third Time) Noorullah (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You are again falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR. You do realise that the first revert was more than 24 hours prior than the other two? I don't have much to say here it's quite self explanatory, while this is not the same case with you, where 3RR has been violated in the span of 24 hours. Indo-Greek 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of breaking 3RR, I'm saying you reverted three times. To break 3RR it has to be four reverts. (you have to revert more than three times). Your reverts were also in a 24 hour period. (Or just shy of it?)

I didn't revert four times to break 3RR. Where are the diffs of me reverting you four times? Noorullah (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. As noted in the loooong discussion above, which again proves that using the talk page is a much preferable alternative to taking it over here. Also, this is getting a bit stale. Daniel Case (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Thomediter reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Declined)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:19, 17 January 2025
2. 11:09, 18 January 2025
3. 13:03, 18 January 2025
4. 14:05, 18 January 2025

Editor was asked to respect BRD and warned that one more revert would result in them being reported for breaching 3RR. They made the fourth revert immediately after responding to the warning.

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

Comments:

• User:Thomediter, I am going to revert your last (fourth) revert; you are indeed edit warring and you're not giving any reasons for your edits, never mind for your ongoing reverts. If you revert one more time you will be blocked. Please don't let it get that far. Seek the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Declined per above and reported editor's inactivity. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on this, it could be meaty as well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --Dennis Definition (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course you stand by the revision. You show up less than 12 hours after Gigga gets blocked, and perform the exact same revert. Dodgy. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Logoshimpo reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Probability and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Slow-motion edit-warring: original bold edit was , subsequent reversions are , , .

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Gentle warning on article talk-page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* WP:SELFREF */ Reply"

Comments: The last revert follows talk-page discussion in which two users (including me) have rejected their arguments and no one has agreed with them. Here was their addition to the talk-page before their most recent revert: . JBL (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Rauzoi reported by User:Crasias (Result: Blocked 36 hours, reporter blocked 24, and page protected for a week)

Page: Nachos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754 vandalized by Crasias"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270457231 by Crasias (talk)"
   2. 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 16:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754"
4. Consecutive edits made from 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754"
   2. 06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
   3. 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Variations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Frequently removing and replacing sourced content that identifies Nachos as "Tex-Mex" rather than "Mexican" Crasias (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Both editors blocked Rauzoi for 36 hours and Crasias for 24 (one less revert over the limit). 3RRNO does not cover this. Furthermore ...

Page protected Extended-confirmed for a week since, as both editors are autoconfirmed only, they will not be able to resume hostilities once the blocks expire. The talk page hasn't been used in months. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User:BoneCrushingDog reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Sex differences in intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BoneCrushingDog (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:

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

Comments: Note that these edits fall squarely under WP:ARBGS, and the last (6th) revert was done after they were formally notified. Generalrelative (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User:177.84.58.25 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Page already semi-protected)

Page: Exclusive economic zone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 177.84.58.25 (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 01:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. 01:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Eu não sou essa pessoa que você está a citar eu comecei a alterar essa página essa e a minhas primeiras vezes , eu estou alteração está página porque eu gosto de ver a área da ZEE de cada país um abaixo do outro ."
   2. 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "I started changing this page today I'm just making changes to this page because I like to see the Zee area of each country in the world, please don't make changes"
   3. 01:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "I started changing this page today I'm just making changes to this page because I like to see the Zee area of ​​each country in the world, please don't make changes"
2. 00:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Eu não vou mais fazer alteração se deixar o Rankings by area porque eu gosto de Rankings by area"
3. 00:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "ZEE com alteração perfeita"
4. 00:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Alterei o tamanho da zona exclusiva econômica do brasil porque a ZEE aumentou em 2024"
5. 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Antes essa página sofreu alteração incorreta, com eu fiz uma alteração mais correta ."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

We discover this week that random numbers were changed a while ago. We changed them back and sort of started a discussion User talk:Maxeto0910#EEZ

Comments:

We are not sure what they are doing...... Think they're mistaken continental shelf for EEZ.Moxy🍁 01:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected (already semi-protected) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User:2A01:4B00:D10A:6700:C8CB:A681:5BFA:C14D reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Harti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A01:4B00:D10A:6700:C8CB:A681:5BFA:C14D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Enterprisers */"
2. 02:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Royalty */"
3. 02:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Enterprisers */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 02:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) to 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. 02:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Royalty */"
   2. 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Politicians */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

and again here, here and here

• Already blocked (/64 blocked for 1 week by Daniel Case) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Wetman and on the article's info page. Xpander (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Widr (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

• Stale Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

  You also block Raoul but later unblocked him after he made his appeal. Kelvintjy (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring