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

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

Revision as of 08:12, 30 July 2011 view sourceFastily (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled100,543 edits →User:Arslanteginghazi reported by User:Alborz Fallah (Result: Stale): fx← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:52, 22 January 2025 view source Daniel Case (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators225,784 edits →User:Ergzay reported by User:CommunityNotesContributor (Result: 1RR imposed on article): another pertinent essayTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
	]
			<!--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 = ~~164~~		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
	}}</noinclude>		}}</noinclude>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}<noinclude>
	__TOC__</noinclude>
	<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->
	<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	<!-- dummy edit -->

	== ] reported by ] (Result:48 h) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected indef) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Lasjan}}~~ ~~<br~~ />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of religious slurs}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Lasjan}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Xuangzadoo}}
	<!-- 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:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			# {{diff2\|1270068423\|19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
	* 1st revert:
			# {{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.)"
	* 2nd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1270039369\|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
	* 3rd revert:
			# "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"."
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:		# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* 6th revert:
			# {{diff2\|1270041824\|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
	* 7th revert: (editing as ])
	* 8th revert: (editing as ])

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			# {{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~~> <br /~~>		<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	] editor repeatedly trying to add promotional Facebook link to article, removed by XLinkBot and multiple users. While editing as IP, tried to . ] (]) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

			All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: IP blocked) ==

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
	User made exact same edits with an IP; his sockpuppetry was noted by an editor other than me .
	<!-- 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. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Conor Benn}} <br />
	Previous version reverted to:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GiggaHigga127}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert: 14:38, 27 July 2011 SteveyCap (Undid revision 441707172 by Fortdj33
	* 2nd revert: 06:15, 28 July 2011 81.101.241.130 (Undid revision 441726326 by Tenebrae)
	* 3rd revert: 12:40, 28 July 2011 SteveyCap (Undid revision 441862403 by TriiipleThreat)
	* 4th revert: 13:01, 28 July 2011 SteveyCap (53,347 bytes) (Undid revision 441865098 by Fortdj33

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	He was then given the latest several edit-war warnings and his IP sockpuppetry noted .
			# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
			# – same
			# – same
			# – same
			# – same, now with PA

	He ~~would~~ ~~have~~ ~~been~~ ~~reported~~ ~~then,~~ ~~after that 4th, but he appeared to have stopped. But he then made another revert~~ .		'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and
	<!-- 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: and		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	--] (]) 21:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
			User:GiggaHigga127 insists on adding the ] and ] divisions to Conor Benn's infobox. Our style guide at WikiProject Boxing, ], says to only include weight classes in which a boxer has ''notably'' competed, that being usually for regional/minor/world titles. In Benn's case, that division was ] for almost the entirety of his career, and he did indeed hold a regional title in that division. In 2023 he was given a lengthy ban from the sport, from which he recently returned in a pair of throwaway fights within the light middleweight limit, against non-notable opposition and with no titles at stake. Per the style guide, those throwaway fights are not important enough to warrant the inclusion of light middleweight in the infobox, at least until he begins competing there regularly.
	*'''Result:''' IP blocked. SteveyCap has made no reverts in the last 24 hours. If this resumes, a block of SteveyCap or semiprotection may be considered. The IP 81.101.241.130 has been blocked for a week per the SPI report. ] (]) 00:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

			As far as middleweight goes, Benn has ''never competed anywhere close to that weight class''. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, ] and ] should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had ] regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. ] would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. ] (]) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==
			:It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. ] (]) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Based on , it could be ] as well. ] (]) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --] (]) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Of course you stand by the revision. You show up less than 12 hours after Gigga gets blocked, and perform the exact same revert. Dodgy. ] (]) 19:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Austrian School}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Misessus}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Tübingen School}}
	<!-- 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\|Xpander1}}
	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. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1270585353\|07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Self-reverting as per ]"
			# {{diff2\|1270579742\|06:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270517034 by ] (]): Please see the redirect page for adding new edits"
			# {{diff2\|1270517034\|22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270516481 by ] (]): Please avoid making an edit war, I asked you nicely"
			# {{diff2\|1270516481\|22:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1270515748\|22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270489731 by ] (]): Please add the new sources to ] Best."
			# {{diff\|oldid=1270482917\|diff=1270489731\|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1270484281\|19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) other editors simply continued my original work, which I respect"
			## {{diff2\|1270489731\|19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Redirecting page the newly created page"
			# {{diff2\|1270482597\|19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Reverting my own edit to contest page creation attribution"
			# {{diff2\|1270267829\|19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

	~~also some~~ of ~~his earlier~~ edit warring ~~over the involvement of 6 editors opposing~~ ~~his~~ ~~approach~~:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1270589185\|07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# {{diff2\|1270588908\|07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270341854\|02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests}} "/* Uncontroversial technical requests */ Decline, this one is more of a histmerge request which would also be declined from ] - I'm happy to explain further on a talk page"

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

			Extremely aggressive edit warring. Xpander1 had expanded a redirect to a page with no issue but decided it would be better to just create a page, hence a discussion at ]. Editor decided to "redact contribution in protest", initially blanking then resorting to redirecting. ] would assist in reverting these changes with Xpander1 reacting negatively, violating 3RR to get it erased. Editor had created redirects such as ] and ], with ] being where he did a cut-and-paste move from original article. Has no intention to resolve dispute any time soon. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 08:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			:All I did was self-reverting, the article had no significant history before my contribution. What you are describing as "copy-pasting", is me putting my own creation in a new page. As I have explained in many places, in the ], and elsewhere. My rationale is very simple, Misplaced Pages must distinguish between '''valid-article-creators''' and '''redirect-page-creators'''. I currently count as the latter. Which don't think is fair. ] (]) 08:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- 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 -->
			::As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on ] and on the . ] (]) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			The Teahouse discussion can be found (for now) at ]. Please see also ] and ]. ] (]) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			:{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}} , I am mystified—no, make it ''stunned''—that Xpander thinks this edit-warring is justified. In what sense are they not being attributed as the page creator sufficiently for their ego? Do they mean that the ''page creation log'' isn't saying that they are? Uh, that's something the ''software'' does, that by design no one has control over. {{u\|Wetman}} is going to get credit for creating the ''page'', yes, as the empty redirect it was apparently quite happy to have been for 15 years. As noted, no editor familiar with how our processes work would doubt that Xpander, in practical terms, created the ''article'' by translating the dewiki article, regardless of what the logs say.<p>Xpander's repeated reversion to the redirect is, frankly, childish behavior that smacks of ]. I strongly remind them ].<p>I also reject their argument that ] shields them as they were merely always "reverting their own edit". Technically that might be arguable, but it is ''inarguable'' that, especially given their statement that ], they did so in a manner calculated to cause ] and interfere with the work of others. To allow this to pass on that basis would be opening up a whole new way to ]. ] (]) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::'''Addendum''': I also commend ] to {{u\|Xpander1}}'s attention. ] (]) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 hours) ==
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	Sadly, even after 3 previous edit warring blocks, it appears that ] thinks edit-warring is an acceptable approach to editing. ] (]) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' No action. It appears that the edit war has cooled off. There have been no reverts in the last 24 hours. If the war resumes, blocks may be considered. ] (]) 00:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Oriel High School}}
	== I Do Not Understand What Is Happening re John C Cremony article ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|92.238.20.255}}
	I recently posted my first major revision to an article, on John C. Cremony. I found that within seconds my corrections were deleted and the old article reinserted. Thinking that I might not have posted my revision, I reposted it, only to have my post again immediately deleted. This has happened three times I am mystified as to how my post could be repeatedly deleted within seconds of posting. I quoted Cremony's book s directly, and do not think that the person who wrote the original article and deleted mine has ever seen a copy of this book. . It is true that my post was much more critical of Cremony, and perhaps this is not allowed. I had just finished reading "Life Among the Apaches" and was astounded by the misrepresentation of it on the site, so I quoted the book directly. I was not trying to start a quarrel. If upon reading my posts and those it replaced, if you think I am in any way in error, please notify me. I have tried posting a note to the "talk" section, but it seems unreadable when I try to access it. Thank you for your help. I am learning the ropes. {{unsigned\|LosAngeles08}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:Your complaint is malformed for this noticeboard. What you are looking for is the ] where you will likely find very little support for your version of the article, where Cremony is described as a genocidal racist Indian hater. ] (]) 03:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*{{AN3\|nv}} The user is now discussing {{genderneutral\|eir}} edits on the article talk page , and other users have explained OR, NPOV, etc. (including, in my case, in response to an email from {{genderneutral\|em}}). Nobody has breached ]. I don't think any further action is necessary. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 05:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270686162\|19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
			# {{diff2\|1270685824\|19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
			# {{diff2\|1270685483\|19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
			# {{diff2\|1270684934\|19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
			# {{diff2\|1270683674\|19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|English people}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Deano545}}

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

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

			'''Page:''' ] <br />
	<!-- 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 -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Kelvintjy}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''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 -->
	~~Diff~~ ~~of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:~~		# 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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Dispute over terminology in opening sentence - editor has shown no willingness to engage in discussion. ] (]) 10:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

	:] is possibly a sock of banned ] (in turn a sock of ]) who was blocked for edit-warring a similar change to this article.] (]) 10:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
	::{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 12:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
	== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Both warned) ==

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|No true Scotsman}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Rundstedt}} and {{userlinks\|Topster888}}

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

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

			Hello
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			the user Kelvintjy has been engaged in another war last summer and was banned from the ] page. He's been pursuing an edit war on the ] page too without daring give explanations on the talk page though he was invited to do it many times. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Rundstedt's reverts:
			*{{AN3\|s}} ] (]) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
			*:@] you blocked this user from the page ] in Aug. 2024 for the same reasons. ] (]) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 2nd revert:
			*:You also block Raoul but later unblocked him after he made his appeal. ] (]) 00:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:

			I don't understand the user always keep targeting me. I am more of a silence contributor. I had seen how the complainant had argue with other contributor in other talk page and after a while the complainant stay silent and not touching certain topic and instead keep making edit on articles related to ] or ]. Now, he is making a lot of edit on ]. ] (]) 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Topster888's reverts:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
	<!-- 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 -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Elon Musk}}
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Rundstedt warned: , Topster888 warned

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ergzay}}
	<!-- 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: Reverts occurred while discussion was ongoing on the talk page:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			# {{diff2\|1270885082\|18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Reverting for user specifying basically ] as their reasoning"
	] (]) 11:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270881666\|18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) I believe you have reverted this edit in error so I am adding it back. Rando tweet from a random organization? The Anti-defamation league is cited elsewhere in this article and this tweet was in the article previously. I simply copy pasted it from a previous edit. ADL is a trusted source in the perennial source list ]"
			# {{diff2\|1270878417\|17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Removing misinformation"
			# {{diff2\|1270875037\|17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
			# {{diff2\|1270724963\|23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Revert, this is not the purpose of the short description"
			# {{diff2\|1270718517\|22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Elon is not a multinational"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*Both editors were {{AN3\|w}} and have not edit warred after, so no block just yet.- ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 11:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270879182\|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small\|(edit: corrected diff)}}

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==
			# {{diff2\|1270885380\|18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" {{small\|(edit: added diff, fix date)}}

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|George Benson}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Horseman16}}

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

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

			] seems to be making a mistake here as several of those edits were of different content. You can't just list every single revert and call it edit warring. And the brief edit warring that did happen stopped as I realized I was reverting the wrong thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1270879523 ] (]) 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			::@] So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. ] (]) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::]: {{tq\|An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.}} – ] (]) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. ] (]) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. ] (]) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::]: {{tq\|There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons}}. – ] (]) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. ] (]) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. ] (]) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
			:The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. ] (]) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. ] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording followed by after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. ] (]) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::What is a CTOP? ] (]) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::A CTOP is a ]. ] (]) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages.}} If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. ] (]) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. ] (]) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			: 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)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected one week; IP range blocked two weeks) ==
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|203.115.14.139}}
	<u>Comments:</u> This editor is also claiming some sort of ownership of the page, asking me not to edit it. He refuses to discuss it on the talk page and refuses to provide a reliable source for the change he wishes to make. I reverted his edits twice before making this report. ]] 14:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC) <br />

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*'''Result:''' Protected three days. Both editors are warned to seek consensus after protection expires. Freshacconci from his own talk page with an edit summary calling it 'vandalism'. If you want to bring complaints here you should try to behave well yourself. A bogus vandalism charge doesn't improve your case. ] (]) 23:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Indef) ==
			# {{diff\|oldid=1271008210\|diff=1271008905\|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1271008695\|06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			## {{diff2\|1271008905\|06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1271007344\|06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1271006989\|06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			#

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Israel and Nazi Germany comparisons}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1271008376\|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Whoneful}}
			# {{diff2\|1271010383\|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

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

	* 1st revert: "Undid revision 442107267 by Malik Shabazz (talk): Rv. POV editing"
	* 2nd revert: "Reversing POV"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			*This is straight-up vandalism. {{U\|BusterD}} semi-protected the article for one week, and I've blocked ] for two weeks.--] (]) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

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

	], like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is subject to a one-revert rule. That means an editor may make only one revert during any 24-hour period. Please see ] for more information.

	Please note that there is a large white edit notice that appears above the edit box on this page:
	{{Editnotices/Page/Israel and Nazi Germany comparisons}}

	— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

	:Also note ]'s response to edit-warring messages: — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
	::The user has been indef-blocked as a sock of {{user\|JarlaxleArtemis}} (Grawp).] ] 22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Israel and Nazi Germany comparisons}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Whoneful}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	<!-- 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: , not that it matters when there's a 1 revert limit.

	<!-- 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: Doesn't apply

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

	The user reverted Malik Shabazz. I reverted the user's obviously POV edits. The user then reverted me, violating the . The user then asked me which, for the record, I do not. The user is now claiming to know he is violating policy and says that removing antisemitism, even though nobody has been antisemitic, That, to me, constitutes vandalism, which ought to give Malik or me the go-ahead to break the 1RR once Whoneful is blocked. But I'm sure someone disagrees with that conclusion, so I won't revert again until I get permission from an admin. ] (]) 22:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
	:This is banned user Grawp, aka {{user\|JarlaxleArtemis}}. Immediate indef no-talkpage-or-email block please.] ] 22:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
	::Do edits from a banned user and known vandal constitute "blatant vandalism?" I admit I'm looking to break 1RR and not get blocked, especially since Whoneful's edits are so awful. ] (]) 22:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
	:::Never mind, the revert has been done. There ought to be a 1RR exception to situations like this. ] (]) 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
	::::There is. The edits of banned users = pure vandalism, and as such are exempt from all revert limitations. ] (]) 23:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
	:::::I just found . Thank you. ] (]) 23:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result:Page protected 2 days) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hannibal (film)}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|InExcelsisDeo}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

	one editor was an attack page also theer is a discussion section for this issue on the article discussion page <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	Editor has reverted multiple times against multiple editors, has gone to the talk page but has not stopped reverting. ] (]) 03:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

	I've reverted, issued a 3RR warning, and responded on the article talk page, but that's about as far as I'm interested in getting involved. InExcelsisDeo is clearly in good faith but sorely misguided as to the level of plot detail warranted in an article and how to handle being reverted. --] (]) 03:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|p}}
	:Though InExcelsisDeo's reasoning/response that one of the editors is an "attack page" doesn't exactly show ].
	:The page is protected for 2 days. I would urge InExcelsisDeo to review ] as well as ] and actually engage in a discussion on the talk page instead of using it to ask for his edits to be left in peace. They may also want to take a second look at ] and ].
	:- ] (]) 03:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Origin of the Azeris}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Arslanteginghazi}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

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

	This user wants to insert a sentence to the text by using an article as source , but that article does not have any sentence about his tendency . I'm sure giving false references is a major problem in Misplaced Pages , but user Arslanteginghazi does not answer to any dialog and only reverts any change to the article .--] (]) 05:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC) <!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|s}} No activity on the page for over 2 days. I have given Arslanteginghazi another warning. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:52, 22 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts:

– re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
– same
– same
– same
– same, now with PA

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 974048061 by Arms & Hearts (talk): Self-reverting as per Misplaced Pages:3RRNO"
06:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270517034 by Xpander1 (talk): Please see the redirect page for adding new edits"
22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270516481 by Xpander1 (talk): Please avoid making an edit war, I asked you nicely"
22:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270516027 by Wikishovel (talk)"
22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270489731 by Xpander1 (talk): Please add the new sources to Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School Best."
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"
19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 974048061 by Arms & Hearts (talk): Reverting my own edit to contest page creation attribution"
19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270267643 by Xpander1 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply"
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)

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:

19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Updated content"
19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Updated content"
19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Deleted content"
19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Deleted content"
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:

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

Read the bright read box at WP:3RR (. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Objective3000 So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. Ergzay (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. Ergzay (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. Ergzay (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:3RR: There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. – RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. Ergzay (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.

The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. Ergzay (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording "LMAO, this is as trustworthy as Fox News" followed by "cannot see the pertinence of this" after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. Ergzay (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

What is a CTOP? Ergzay (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A CTOP is a WP:CTOP. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. Ergzay (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

Categories: