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 06:35, 20 August 2011 view sourceMiszaBot II (talk \| contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 48h) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive165.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:18, 22 January 2025 view source Closed Limelike Curves (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,185 edits Adding new report for 68.150.205.46.Tag: Twinkle
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 = ~~165~~		\|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: 72 ~~hours~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected indef) ==

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

			'''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"
			# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
			# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1270041824\|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff2\|1270040704\|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
			# {{diff2\|1270045411\|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned numerous times on talk; blocked for edit warring

			All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
	This is not a 3RR report, but an edit warring report. LittleJerry has been disrupting a number of "conservatism" articles. He has been warned several times, editors have made repeated attempts to discuss issues with him, but he continues to be disruptive. He was recently blocked for edit warring at Sean Hannity.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Conor Benn}} <br />
	In the particular instance he is removing links from the preiminent Conservatism template and was reverted by two different editors. I asked him to discuss these changes, so what does he do? He opens a discussion at 12:08, reverts at 12:09, and then ] a sympathetic editor at 12:16 (times PDT). – ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GiggaHigga127}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
	::So why doesn't the reporter, contribute to the discussion. Rather than report edit warring and give he blocked so he can simply revert back without responding on the talk page. ] (]) 05:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*{{AN3\|b\| 72 hours}} Clearly edit warring again on the template. He has declined to cease the activity. ] ] 14:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
			# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
			# – same
			# – same
			# – same
			# – same, now with PA

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Carlos Hathcock}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|27.32.147.4}}

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

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

			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)
	*
			: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) ==
	*Warning ] which they ignored

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Tübingen School}}
	*] which I've moved to the article talk page.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Xpander1}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	This is a longstanding issue which is in the archives of the talk page as well as on the talk page itself. People want to reason without reliable sources that what was reported in sources could not have taken place.<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">]</span> 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: no violation) ==
			# {{diff2\|1270585353\|07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Self-reverting as per ]"
			# {{diff2\|1270579742\|06:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270517034 by ] (]): Please see the redirect page for adding new edits"
			# {{diff2\|1270517034\|22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270516481 by ] (]): Please avoid making an edit war, I asked you nicely"
			# {{diff2\|1270516481\|22:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1270515748\|22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270489731 by ] (]): Please add the new sources to ] Best."
			# {{diff\|oldid=1270482917\|diff=1270489731\|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1270484281\|19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) other editors simply continued my original work, which I respect"
			## {{diff2\|1270489731\|19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Redirecting page the newly created page"
			# {{diff2\|1270482597\|19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Reverting my own edit to contest page creation attribution"
			# {{diff2\|1270267829\|19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Michele Bachmann}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1270589185\|07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Arzel}}

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			# {{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>
	Previous version reverted to:

			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)
	<!-- 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:

			: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)
	<!-- 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 -->
			::As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on ] and on the . ] (]) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			The Teahouse discussion can be found (for now) at ]. Please see also ] and ]. ] (]) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			:{{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)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			::'''Addendum''': I also commend ] to {{u\|Xpander1}}'s attention. ] (]) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	User has been warned ]

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 hours) ==
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Oriel High School}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|92.238.20.255}}
	Arzel had been edit warring on the same section in violation of the 3RR rule with at least two other users. The content was sourced by several citations, but he reverted the entire section. His statement of his "first edit" was a deletion of a previous editor's established work. After warning that he was in violation of the 3RR rule and was edit warring, he left this message on my talk page claiming that he was not in violation, and that I should "Learn how to count." ] ] 06:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:Not only does DT not know how to count, he did not notify me of this submission. ] (]) 13:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
	:I also started the discussion after my second revert. The first edit was after an editor split up a long standing section into . After this I noticed that the section I removed didn't fit, and I gave a perfectly rational reason for removal. I then reverted it twice after both returns did not address the fundamental issue. Regardless, it is clearly not a 3RR violation and DT submitted this after already knowing I didn't violate 3RR. ] (]) 13:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*{{AN3\|nv}} I don't see the fourth revert needed to claim a 3RR violation. ] ] 14:09, 18 August 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\|Nair}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Unnithan1956}}

	<!-- 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:
	* 3rdnd revert:
	* 4th 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 -->
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ] - see comments below
			# 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 />
	The cited content which has been removed has been discussed at great length over a period of several weeks on the article talk page. There are numerous threads, there were reports at ANI etc. This particular person appears to have a problem with NPOV, which is not uncommon on article about the castes of India. Starting yet another article talk page discussion seems to be somewhat pointless after the many recent ones. It is effectively an SPA as their edits relate only to articles about the Nair community and have generally been unconstructive. - ] (]) 08:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*'''Result:''' 24 hours. Editor did not break 3RR, but he is edit warring over the same material for two or more weeks. One of the books cited in the ] article is by the scholar ], about whom Unnithan1956 on his own talk page:<blockquote>The cock and bull stories of Sadasivan would have found a naive publisher in Delhi. But contains only a clever mixture of false statements and secret wishes.. It does not qualigy to be a book. Please remove all refereneces to this book.</blockquote>] describes him as 'an Indian author and theorist of public administration', who at one time was a professor in New Delhi at the ]. In the above diffs Unnithan1956 is shown to be removing reference to Sadasivan's works, including one called 'The social history of India.' Unnithan1956 has never posted at ] to give his rationale for removing the Sadasivan references. ] (]) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hyderabad, India}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Dragonbooster4}}

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

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

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

			Hello
	<!-- 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 -->
			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-->
			*{{AN3\|s}} ] (]) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@] you blocked this user from the page ] in Aug. 2024 for the same reasons. ] (]) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:You also block Raoul but later unblocked him after he made his appeal. ] (]) 00:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			I don't understand the user always keep targeting me. I am more of a silence contributor. I had seen how the complainant had argue with other contributor in other talk page and after a while the complainant stay silent and not touching certain topic and instead keep making edit on articles related to ] or ]. Now, he is making a lot of edit on ]. ] (]) 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See ].

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Elon Musk}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br /> Yes, I know that the warning is in a weird place (a third editor's talk page), but similar things have been said in other places as well; plus, since the user was previously blocked for violation 3RR on a different article, they are well aware of the rule. ] (]) 14:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ergzay}}
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*{{AN3\|b\| 72 hours}} Clear reverts at 13:48, 11:37 on the 18th and 14:13 on the 17th. The edit at 15:00 on the 17th is a revert as well (same as the one he performed at 19:32 on the 16th). Warnings are to make sure a new editor is aware of the rather obscure rule; this editor clearly is. ] ] 15:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== Should my FUTON bias Talk page post be deleted? ==
			# {{diff2\|1270885082\|18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Reverting for user specifying basically ] as their reasoning"
			# {{diff2\|1270881666\|18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) I believe you have reverted this edit in error so I am adding it back. Rando tweet from a random organization? The Anti-defamation league is cited elsewhere in this article and this tweet was in the article previously. I simply copy pasted it from a previous edit. ADL is a trusted source in the perennial source list ]"
			# {{diff2\|1270878417\|17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Removing misinformation"
			# {{diff2\|1270875037\|17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
			# {{diff2\|1270724963\|23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Revert, this is not the purpose of the short description"
			# {{diff2\|1270718517\|22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Elon is not a multinational"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Dear Administrator,
			# {{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:'''
	I don't yet wish to make a formal complaint, but several users have been deleting my contribution to the ] page, as you can see via the edit history. They are not willing to discuss the substance of my post but attack it as a 'rant' which it cannot possibly be, in my opinion. I have been doing research on reliable-source support for my unpopular (on that page!) point of view, but I am not ready to edit the FUTON bias article page just yet. In the mean time, why shouldn't other prospective editors see what I have to say thus far? I don't believe the deleters are justified in their deletions under ], but I will allow this to happen if a neutral observer with no emotional investment in the issue and experience in what may and may not be erased from Talk pages, so advises.
			# {{diff2\|1270885380\|18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" {{small\|(edit: added diff, fix date)}}

	I have never contacted an Administrator before so I don't know if I am approaching this correctly. I assume I just return to this Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/] page for your response but if not please leave a message on ].

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Thanks for your help. —] (]) 18:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

			Breach of ] {{small\|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Firstly, to be clear, I'm not an administrator - but I'm sure that one would say much the same thing as me. Article talk pages are there to discuss improvements to article content, not as a general forum for debate about the subject of the article. Your comments about 'reality bias' were thus off-topic (and incidentally insulting to Misplaced Pages contributors). Personally, I would have collapsed the section, or archived it, rather than deleting it, but per ] 'Refactoring for relevance' this is acceptable. If you wish to address biases in Misplaced Pages (of which I'm sure there are quite a few), this isn't the way to do it. ] (]) 18:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

			] seems to be making a mistake here as several of those edits were of different content. You can't just list every single revert and call it edit warring. And the brief edit warring that did happen stopped as I realized I was reverting the wrong thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1270879523 ] (]) 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I'm sorry that you misunderstood the purpose of my contribution, AndyTheGrump. This may be my fault, but perhaps someone who understands what I was driving at (to call for inclusion of reliable sources that disagree with the assumptions of the article) will defend ''not the content'' of my comment, which you also criticize (as "insulting" — I disagree) but its relevance and right to be heard. As I see it ] supports me. Of course I don't wish to be the judge of my own case. —] (]) 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
	::Blanchette, you first added your comment about 'reality bias' to , last May. Since then you've been warring off and on to keep that comment on the page. The other editors on the talk page feel that your post is off topic and unhelpful and they've been removing it. (Part of it looks like a rant against Misplaced Pages). The simplest way to end this dispute is for you to stop restoring the material. You were at 3RR the last time you tried to do this, and I urge you to go no farther. (You about one hour ago). If you feel that your paragraph has permanent value why not put it on your user page. If you restore this material again you will most likely be blocked. The edit warring policy applies to all pages including talk pages and restoring your own comment is not exempt under ]. ] is a guideline, not a policy. ] (]) 22:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	:Thanks, EdJohnston, for answering the question I came here voluntarily to ask. I have not, of course, been "warring" -- I merely honestly believed my post belonged under the rules of WP:TPO. Since you disagree of course, I will delete the post. Please know that I value Misplaced Pages, I do not "rant" by any definition I know of, and please remember, ''assume good faith''. ] —] (]) 23:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	:::Well, I'm a neutral non-administrator. I've never heard of FUTON bias before and still don't know what it is because I didn't even look at the article. I've never heard of you before, and I didn't check to see which editors removed your comment because it does not matter anyway. The only thing I read was your post, and indeed, it is clearly an off topic rant and has no place on the article talk page per ]. I would have deleted it, too. ] (]) 22:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	::Thank you for your opinion. —] (]) 23:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

			:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==
			::@] 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) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fort Ancient}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|207.210.33.3}}

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|203.115.14.139}}
	Previous version reverted to:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff\|oldid=1271008210\|diff=1271008905\|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{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:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			# {{diff2\|1271008376\|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by another user, and by myself
			# {{diff2\|1271010383\|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- 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 />

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			*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)
	Ip user is changing article content and sourcing it to a personal website, while simultaneously removing reliably sourced information with reliable references. They have yet to use an edit summary, the article talk or answer messages at their talk. They were warned by an admin (link provided above) and have since went well beyond 3RR. ]] 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Comparison~~ ~~of notetaking software~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Droop quota}}

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|~~Hoodoo22~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|68.150.205.46}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Time reported:''' 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 444169580 by ] (])")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 444443896 by ] (])")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 444525157 by ] (])")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 445225651 by ] (])")</small>

	* Diff of warning:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			# {{diff2\|1270714484\|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ reply to Quantling"
	This user constantly adds linkspam/advert to the article, violating ]. Refuses to communicate back (in case I am wrong) and has an interest in conflict. Has received enough warning. ] (]) 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270714531\|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit reply to Quantling"
	*{{AN3\|b\|indefinite}} -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270714949\|22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ addition"
			# {{diff2\|1270715070\|22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit addition"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: blocked 31 hours) ==

			User has been edit-warring for the past 9 months to try and reinsert incorrect information into the article, despite repeatedly having had this mistake corrected, and a consensus of 5 separate editors against these changes. Request page ban from ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 22:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Espresso}}

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|RonaldMerchant}}

	'''Time reported:''' 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

	# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "restore alternate spelling with source")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* History */ restore sourced material in history and precursors")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "it's also sometimes considered more correct, as it is spelled this way in French")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 445593577 by ] (]) i already explained it in the note; stop edit warring")</small>

	* Diff of warning:

	Note: Edit 1 restores material added by this editor on Aug 15 so is a revert; edits 2 and 3 are a partial revert; edit 4 is a revert, edit 5 is a revert.

	—] (]) 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Evil eye}}

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|RonaldMerchant}}

	'''Time reported:''' 03:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 445374912 by ] (]) unreferenced, but correct; paternak, etc")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 445592860 by ] (]) i win")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Armenia */ you can verify it by using Google Scholar. 3-0.")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 445606020 by ] (]) why don't you stop being lazy and use Google, instead of deleting vast swaths of useful information?")</small>

	—] (]) 03:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


	: He's playing games. He made 3 full reverts, as did I. ] (]) 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	:::Admin should note Yworo is now HOUNDING all my edits across Misplaced Pages, including re-inserting unsourced material, such as here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scotch-Irish_American&diff=prev&oldid=445597468 (famous figures, such as Elvis, being supposedly "Scotch-Irish"). Yworo is exhibiting a BATTLEGROUND mentality and ought to be warned or sanctioned. ] (]) 01:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	::::Yworo has been warned here. ] (]) 01:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	::::::RonaldMerchant is clearly trolling. Please note these edit comments, "i win", "i win again". Looks like RM has the "battleground mentality". I'm just trying to fix the intentional problems he's caused in articles, such as calling a publication group "fringe" without sources. Take a look through his article edits and you'll see that a number of them seem intended to provoke ''somebody''. Do I hear a ]? ] (]) 01:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	::::::: Those responses are a result of you HOUNDING my edits and exhibiting a BATTLEGROUND mentality. Leave me alone. DON'T BITE THE NEWCOMERS] (]) 01:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	{{OD}}Minimally involved editor here, I'm inclined to agree with Yworo. ''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	::::::::Ain't that a surprise. Minimally involved? Hah! ] (]) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::::What was that for? ] <sup>]</sup> 02:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	::::::::::I reverted one of his edits, I guess that's what he's "Hah!"ing about. ''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	Anyone who shouts "DON'T BITE THE NEWCOMERS" (verbatim, and his full caps) is no newcomer. -- ] (]) 02:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers ] (]) 02:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	::This guy is on editors' talkpages while being reported for edit-warring on ] and just a few days after being blocked for edit-warring on ]. I mean what does it take? ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 02:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	:::I'll tell you what it takes - HIGHLY INVOLVED EDITOR - leave me alone, don't HOUND or HARASS me, and I won't respond. Every one who has been polite to me, has received polite responses. People trying to bully me because I'm new. But sorry, I'm not impressed by templates and noticeboards and such. ] (]) 02:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Don't shout slogans at me. Your comments {{xt\|Your surrender is graciously accepted}} speak for themselves. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 02:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	::::You're not new, as is shown by for example . Or maybe you are new, but your fluency with templates shows that you are a fast learner and thus are no less (or more) biteable than are old lags like me. Now, where and how do you want to ''contribute''? (Me, I've been busy with ].) -- ] (]) 02:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	:::::I copy and pasted the same templates Yworo posted on my talk page! Isn't that obvious? LOL! ] (]) 02:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	Yworo is now '''edit warring''' here . Challenging my citation - which is easily found in Google Scholar (and JSTOR). 4 reverts in slight over 24 hours. Still, he's barking up the wrong tree. ] (]) 02:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	:Yworo is now writing "i suspect citation is fake" on all my edits. LOL. If this is not a BATTLEGROUND mentality, what is? ] (]) 02:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|blocked\|31 hours}} ] 03:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	*For the record, this user turned out to be a sockpuppet of ] and was subsequently blocked indefinitely. See ]. ] (]) 21:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	::Good job everyone. Also great admin work throughout this case. Few cases work so well here but this is a good example. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 23:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Neil Steinberg}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Newzpaperman}}

	<!-- 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:


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

	Repeated removal of some well sourced arrest information, restored by several different editors. ''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

	*{{AN3\|w}} The editor is now discussing their concerns with the article at ].] (]) 03:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Dan Henderson}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|98.27.74.206}} and {{userlinks\|66.51.147.57}}

	<!-- 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:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:
	* 8th revert:
	* (first two by 66.51.147.57, last 6 by 98.27.74.206)
	<!-- 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: before the most recent revert (8th above)

	<!-- 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 refuses to use talk page despite me specifically asking him to do so on his user talk page (see link above).

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*These 8 reverts are spread over the course of about a week, so it may not meet 3RR strictly, but this user shows absolutely no sign that they intend to let up; they characterize everyone elses edits as "vandalism" and have refused to discuss the matter on the talk page, despite being specifically invited to do so. I would have blocked him myself, but I reverted him twice during this spree, so I just need another admin to look this over. The most recently used IP has been used for over 48 hours, so I don't think it is all that dynamic; however since this user has used more than one IP address, a semiprotection AND a block may be needed, but anything to slow this guy down would be appreciated. --]''''']''''' 00:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|p}} -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Koch Industries}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Gise-354x}}

	<!-- 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: first state of this editor's edit 22:31 18 Aug

	<!-- 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: 22:53 19 Aug
	* 2nd revert: 23:24 19 Aug
	* 3rd revert: 23:50 19 Aug
	* 4th revert: 00:18 20 Aug


	Also reverting on all related articles e.g. 23:15 19 Aug

	00:32 20 Aug

	And so on


	Note: shows him with a 1RR problem on a Climate Change article. shows that he is now ''well aware'' of what counts as a revert. shows a WQA complaint. shows how he responded to the complaint.

	<!-- 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: with response of
	:''Someone can't count it seems. File the report im not aware of any wrong doing, Dude ''

	<!-- 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: etc. with response of etc. shows a problem in acceptabce of ] and ]

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	This relatively new user seems determined to avoid collegial editing (no other editor on the talk pages has backed his insistance that he knows the Koches created the Tea Party, etc. I gave him more than ample time to self-revert, and got the unhelpful response asking me to file the report. So I am doing so. Cheers. ] (]) 00:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
	*'''Seconded''' All attempts at not ] by a fair amount of editors to explain both why the edits are being reverted and why the edit warring behavior At ], an article under 1RR sanctions, the behavior was so egregious that pretty much any 20 or 30 minute chunk of editing is a 3RR violation, and there are several chunks like this in a 24 hour period. That is, violating 3RR even on a 1RR-sanctioned article, and too long to list fully. I chose not to report based on ], but the inability of this user to accept a mistake and move on requires community action. --] (]) 01:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
	::: I have no idea what Cerejota is doing here, he filed a sockpuppet involving me, yesterday and overall shows only unfaithful behavior. And today he follows me it seems and comments everywhere i talk with others about wiki edits, in a none neutral way. Cerejota please discuss issues you might have with me in the respective topics, ty. ] (]) 01:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
	:: I did 2 reverts after Collect removed new additions to the[REDACTED] including new content, a new section and updated, improved content. Parts of what Collect claims above are not reverts. For a better clarification i suggest you , the last 4 edits are from me and Collect.
	I tried to explain and was seeking consensus on the talk page ]. But Collect kept on pretending that the wiki edit from me is about living people and i have unreliable sources. However the content in question from Greenpeace, was already part of the wiki before i started editing it. So im not aware of any wrong doing and understand that Collect follows an agenda to systematically prevent updates to the fossil fuel funding from Koch's. Further without prior contact with him his first comment on a wiki talk page where i asked a question , his response has been uncivil, ].
	:: He replied there quote: ''The problem is that you know 'what ain't so'. You ascribe specific ulterior motives to a person who is not the "creator" of the Tea Party, which rather means all else of your syllogism fails. Cheers. Collect''
	:: Other edits i made earlier to the wiki have been reverted mostly by the user http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Bonewah, but he did not deleted my entire attributions so i did not undid his actions. Im not aware of any wrong doing and i can only count two revision reverts i made. ] (]) 01:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

	:::You had been previously apprised that "revert" covers ''any'' change undoing even part of another's edits. You are at 4RR in a matter of a couple of hourrs - well beyond the 3RR in 24 hours standard, and you refused to self-revert when told of this. You were told by a number of editors about the restrictions on Climate Change articles, and appear to have ''greatly exceeded 3RR'' on articles with a ''1RR'' limit - Cheers. ] (]) 01:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
	:::: The changes i made to the other wiki content has been content which was older then 24h. Why don't you check your facts before you start your accusations and unfounded reporting. It almost feels like witch hunting here you guys clearly have an agenda as i mentioned above. ] (]) 01:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
	:::::It doesn't matter. Will you please agree to limit yourself to 1RR per article per day from now on? ] (]) 01:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
	As has been explained to you before, the content you revert can be years old. The 24 hour limit is for ''your'' reverts. It is also a ''bright line'', so even if not 3RR, you can be considered a disruptive editor anyways and blocked.
	Any admin who gives attention to this case, besides the well beyond proven 1RR and 3RR issues in multiple pages, please note the ] issues around bright-line 1RR and 3RR. Claiming not to understand multiple attempts at explanation by multiple editors, is at the very least a failure to have the comprehension skills to be a good editor.
	Lastly, if you feel you are being stalked or followed, rather than your misbehavior being monitored, feel free, as I have already told you, to go to ] and complain there. Poisoning the well doesn't work around here, in which the evidence speaks louder than any words, and the vidence here is damning.--] (]) 02:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
	:Look at his talk page. How many editors have explained this to him? ] (]) 02:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
	::I cant speak to any climate change articles, but he is getting somewhat combative on ] and ]. Nothing too egregious, but he could stand to tone it down a ways. ] (]) 02:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|1 week}} -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:18, 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)

User:68.150.205.46 reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

Categories: