Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:58, 22 December 2011 view sourceKuru (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators205,088 edits →User:NYyankees51 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: ): close← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:52, 22 January 2025 view source Daniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators225,775 edits →User:Ergzay reported by User:CommunityNotesContributor (Result: 1RR imposed on article): another pertinent essayTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
]
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 175 |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>
}}
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
</noinclude>
{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}<noinclude>
__TOC__</noinclude>
<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
<!-- dummy edit -->


== ] reported by ] (Result:Declined) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected indef) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Israelis}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of religious slurs}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Israelite1}}


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


Previous version reverted to: '''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|1270068423|19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1270041541|16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
* 2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1270039369|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
* 3rd revert:
# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
# "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:


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) ==
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
-] (]) 09:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <br />
:: ''Comment'' User has not broken 3RR yet, does seem a bit odd that a user has only made 4 edits and 3 of them are all reverts. ] (]) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GiggaHigga127}}
:Those kind of edits are clearly covered by 1RR under ] and the use of Joan Peters as a source doesn't suggest the editor belongs here at all. I've added 1RR/sanctions headers. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 11:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
:: I'm curious, how does one know that an article is under 1RR restriction?, surely we can't just assume a new (or even an experienced) editor knows about ]. ] (]) 11:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
:: Never mind, just seen the warning on the talk page. Never seen that before, would be very easy to miss. ] (]) 11:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
*{{AN3|declined}} but only because the warnings were put on the editor's talk page after their last edit. They now should be clear about the 1RR restriction and if they break it or take other actions which appear to be edit warring should then be blocked. ] (]) 15:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
::'''I don't get this'''. I did not refer to 1RR. I know is might be I/P related (and so ARBPIA), but I did not claim 1RR transgression. (The 1RR has only been notified ''after'' my notification here ). And all together: no 1RR was in scope (except for the accused user).
::I am here for a ''3RR''. Factual: R1=10:36 (Dec 17), R2=04:44 (Dec18), R3=09:35 (Dec18). The user did ''3 reverts withing 23h''. All were show "undo" as by automate (btw User did mark all as "minor", which requires a personal action).
::You could have killed me here for "not engaging in dispute solving".
::Oh, and by the way: I posted here (1st time I guess), but I did not read that I was ''writing a request that could be "denied"'' (exactly what was denied?). Just wanted to note a 3RR user. -] (])
:::3RR was not broken, since it takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the ] rule. The editor was forgiven for their 1RR violation but is warned not to repeat it. I have notified ] about the discretionary sanctions under ]. ] (]) 12:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Hm, so that's the way to read it. I learned 3RR-counting was a ''maximum'', not a ''right'' (which is a good idea). IMO, the "just three" reverts looked suspicious enough to warrant a note here (new user, no es, no talking). Well, thanks anyway to take care. Consider matter closed. -] (]) 20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
::::: That's not what was said, and you know it. If you'd warned ''properly'' in the first place, a block might have occurred ...but right now it's simply punishment. After all, discussion is the intent of the entire thing (]<span style="border:1px solid green;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 20:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::It ''is'' what EdJohnston said .
::::::New to me is, that a "warning" counts as a "discussion". I actually added the warning ''as was advised on this page in the Listing instructions'' (and in the preload) as part of the reporting here. Both BWilkins and the declining editor (!) think different.
::::::Also in the Listing Instructions block, actually above it in <span style="color:red">red</span>, is the main line on this page worth reading. As I did earlier.
::::::If one wants to improve from ''what was said'', one could revisit my note that the wording of this page & its reporting does not make sense logically.
::::::Straight from ] I dare quoting: ''any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.''
::::::Now what do I supposedly know? -] (]) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::re ]: To me, your reply is a non-AGF . I think I responded extensively and sincerely . I might expect a response, don't you think? -] (]) 20:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::'''Ooh, never mind ]'''. While I was expecting a response on my first report here, and while you were contemplating your post here (without AGF, as I pointed out), the User I reported here got SPI'ed, CUéd, banned, recreated an account for the same edits, ranted my talkpage twice with libels before getting banned again. Now if I only had a AN-page where I could report such suspicious behaviour. ''This'' page is not working. I do have diffs, but since no one is interested, I will provide then by request. -] (]) 22:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: Oh sorry ... I thought this thread was um, over? I hadn't look at it until I politely suggested you re-read what was originally said. Now, please stop the tantrum and go back to what I always thought was your normal reasonable and respectable behaviour (]<span style="border:1px solid green;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 22:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result:No violation ) ==
# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
# – same
# – same
# – same
# – same, now with PA


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List_of_changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releases}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|AndyTheGrump}}


'''Diff 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. -->


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


<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)
* 1st revert:
: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)
* 2nd revert:
::Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: :::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)
* 5th revert:
:::::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)
* 6th revert:


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tübingen School}}
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xpander1}}
<!-- 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:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User has refused to discuss or engage any communication warning him that mass reversions are unacceptable and that the article content is acceptible on Misplaced Pages, despite numerous examples provided.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{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:'''
*{{AN3|novioexplain}} AndyTheGrump's last edit to this was a week ago, and the one before that 2 months ago. Editor bringing this seems to have a content dispute with him but that can probably be worked out on the talk page. ] (]) 15:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270589185|07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:::This has got to be about the most ridiculous misuse of this noticeboard I've seen. Evidently, having failed to explain how an article consisting almost entirely of original research can be justified, Feldon23 prefers to resort to falsification. It is an outright lie that I have "refused to discuss or engage any communication", as the ] demonstrates. ] (]) 17:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270588908|07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply"
::It seems very odd that an account which hasn't been used in three years made this complaint. These accounts appear to be recently created/active who have made comments on the talk page: ] ] ] ] ]. Is this grounds for a checkuser to be performed? ] (]) 17:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
# {{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"
:::Good point. Feldon23 has apparently revived an inactive account solely for the purpose of making false assertions about 'vandalism' and violations of WP:3RR. You're right - the obvious question is whether he/she has been involved in the discussions under another account... ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
::::feldon23 is an account I have used rarely on[REDACTED] but it is no less valid. I'd be happy to verify it by any means required. First, i have little interest in the article in question. I came upon it when someone linked me to it and i found it in the current dispicable state. So i headed to the Talk page to find that someone named AndyTheGrump who not only had no knowledge of the subject, and not only was advocating the speedy deletion of an article that had been built up over several years, but had REVERTED major parts of the article no less than SIX TIMES. All attempts at useful discussion have failed and Andy continues to promote the idea of deleting the article altogether on the basis that any list of deleted or changed scenes about a film is not encyclopedic and has no place on[REDACTED] despite hundreds of films on[REDACTED] having such annotations. Thus far Andy hasn't brought up the article for Deletion because he knows he will lose. I am dealing with AndyTheGrump as one deals with a bully. If I had simply reverted all his reversions, then I would stand accused. What Andy is doing is Vandalism plain and simple. ] (]) 18:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::If "feldon23 is an account have used rarely on wikipedia", can you please let us know which other accounts you ''have'' been using? ] (]) 18:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::feldon23 is my one and only Misplaced Pages account. When are you going to bring the article up for Deletion? That's what you've indicated you feel should happen.] (]) 23:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Is anyone aware of the process for creating a sock puppet investigation here as it seems there is something worth investigating here. ] (]) 11:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:I'll pass any such test. Meanwhile the points I've raised go unanswered.] (]) 12:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:: This isn't the board for your issues. This is the 3RR board and Andy clearly isn't guilty of 3RR as has been pointed out. I suggest you move to the talk page of the article in question and raise your points there. Perhaps you could raise a ] to get more neutral input? ] (]) 12:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:: I've left a welcome message on your talk page, this contains many useful links, including how to help resolve dispute. Hope it's useful for you. ] (]) 12:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


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


: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)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Chris Moyles}} <br />
::As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on ] and on the . ] (]) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|82.41.22.244}}


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 hours) ==
Previous version reverted to:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Oriel High School}}
<!-- 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:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|92.238.20.255}}
<!-- 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 -->


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- 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 -->
# {{diff2|1270686162|19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on related talk pages:
# {{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"


<u>Comments:</u> This is one aspect of a running dispute over whether mock-awards presented by political advocacy organizations, intended to disparage/deride their "recipients", should be presented in BLP articles as though they were standard, legitimate awards, and whether such faux awards, characterizing the "recipient" as a "bigot" or a "bully", simply amount to abusive invective that should not be included in articles at all. The dispute is in places rather heated. In the last day or so, this IP-hopping user(with whom I've been involved in other disputes, where it has used multiple account names and IPs) has targeted the article for particular attention, repeatedly adding back contentious and disputed BLP content with the claim that no consensus has been established to remove it. (In the recent past, the disputed content has been removed has been removed by at least three different editors (myself, Noq and Osarius), while supported by Escape Orbit and the IP.) The IP's actions are clearly intended as disruption, attacking (usually in edit summaries) those on the opposite side of the dispute as "vandals" , removing comments from talk pages , and even suggesting that such repeatedly disputed content is not "contentious" . <br />
Given both the evident BLP problems and the plainly disruptive intentions of the IP, I believe that, in accordance with the outcomes of multiple similar past disputes, my own editing is exempt from 3RR limits and requires no more extended discussion than I have already provided. I will, of course, conform future edits to whatever is determined here. ] (]) 18:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{an3|p|4 days}}. Please consider bringing this to ] for further input. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 19:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
::Thank ou. There have been several related discussions recently on BLPN recently, with a more general discussion now on BLPN AT ] where I've commented. ] (]) 02:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:::It should be noted that this is the first time that ], who is far more guilty of edit warring on this article than anyone, has bother to clarify his edits, and he still declines to join the discussion on the article talk page. The cause of this dispute lies completely at his feet. Why couldn't he have done this at the start? --<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments''': This IP is trying to censor information in that article --] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</u>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Filioque}} <br />
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ] (]) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Pseudo-Richard}}
*: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 a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


'''Page:''' ] <br />
Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kelvintjy}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
<!-- 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 -->
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230019964
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230184562


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


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Here's the output of 3rr.php for this dispute, counting just the edits of Pseudo-Richard:


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
# <small>(edit summary: "reverting rant which, even if sourced, is off-topic in this section which is titled "Recent attempts at reconciliation"; discuss on Talk Page")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 466544018 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Recent attempts at reconciliation */ Moving text that discusses recent theological perspectives to a separate section; this section is about "attempts at reconciliation"")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "rv LoveMonkey's restoration; put history in the "historical" section and recent developments in the "recent" section")</small>


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
Pseudo-Richard's edits numbers 2 and 3 are consecutive. So he has made only three reverts altogether.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
For comparison, here are LoveMonkey's recent edits on the same article:
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ restored ENTIRE SECTION THAT WAS SOURCED WHY DID ESOGLOU DELETE THIS MUCH MATERIAL WITHOUT TALKPAGE CONSENSUS?")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 466460105 by ] (])reverted editwarring by Roman Catholic editors whom are edit warring")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 466547111 by ] (])reverted POV blanket deletion of sourced material address on talkpage")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Recent attempts at reconciliation */ added back in summary rename")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Joint statement in the United States in 2003 */ and this one")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ since revert failed readded conent and altered content to reflect talkpage comments by other editors")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ clarification")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ change title to reflect what can be sourced by source agreed upon by editors")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ partial restore will restore other parts once I complete sourcing")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Adoption into the Nicene Creed */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ restored sourcable summary")</small>
Edits 3-8 and 9-11 of LoveMonkey are consecutive. So LoveMonkey has made at most four reverts altogether on December 18. Some of his edits may just be shuffling material around or adding new text, so they may not be reverts. Other users are invited to study the pattern of edits to see if there is an actual revert war. LoveMonkey is restricted from changing anything related to Catholic beliefs, though he may edit Eastern Orthodox material. See ] for details. I won't be able to look further into this for several hours,so other admins are welcome to close this if they can figure it out. The ] has been the scene of furious edit wars in the past. A dispute about the Filioque is the source of the split between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths. ] (]) 19:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
:On the part of Pseudo-Richard, {{AN3|nve}} On the part of LoveMonkey, I do count four actual reverts; {{an3|b|24 hours}}. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 19:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
::Harrumph... it looks like I just barely avoided crossing over the "bright line" of 3RR and I recognize that this is not a good thing. I normally try to observe ] and I confess that I was a bit more irritable than usual this morning and just didn't have the patience to follow ] and issue a ] as I probably should have.


Hello
::In recognition of the principle that "both sides are guilty in an edit war", I will refrain from editing this article until LoveMonkey's block has expired. I have made a fuller exposition of these points on the article's ].
the user Kelvintjy has been engaged in another war last summer and was banned from the ] page. He's been pursuing an edit war on the ] page too without daring give explanations on the talk page though he was invited to do it many times. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*{{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)
::--] (]) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
::: Is there a "like" button? That's truly good of you - I wish more people who involved themselves in edit-wars (whether intentionally or accidentally) would be so honourable. (]<span style="border:1px solid green;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 20:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 month) == == ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Incest}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Islamic schools and branches}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|50.16.108.39}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ergzay}}
<!-- 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|1270885082|18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Reverting for user specifying basically ] as their reasoning"
* 1st revert:
# {{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 ]"
* 2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1270878417|17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Removing misinformation"
* 3rd revert: <small>(edit summary: better in intro. don't hide the info. that rhymes)</small>
# {{diff2|1270875037|17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
* 4th revert:
# {{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:'''
<!-- 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|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:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1270885380|18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" {{small|(edit: added diff, fix date)}}
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


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


Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
If you check the 3rd edit summary he rhymes and jokes. I want a page protection for both pages as he's just stalking me. ] ] 11:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Blocked one month. shows that this IP is coming from a range used by ]. Web servers should not edit Misplaced Pages. I'm filing this case at ] so that others can check my reasoning and see if a longer proxy block is appropriate. do not seem to be the source of any similar abuse so a range block appears unnecessary. ] (]) 15:10, 19 December 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)
== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: No vio) ==


:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1986 FIFA World Cup}}
::@] So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. ] (]) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::]: {{tq|An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. ] (]) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. ] (]) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::]: {{tq|There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons}}. – ] (]) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. ] (]) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. ] (]) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
:The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. ] (]) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. ] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording followed by after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. ] (]) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::What is a CTOP? ] (]) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::A CTOP is a ]. ] (]) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages.}} If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. ] (]) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. ] (]) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
: 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) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|PeeJay2K3}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul Cézanne}}
'''Time reported:''' 16:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}}
* Revert comparison ("compare"): ().


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# () <small>(edit summary: "where was this discussed?")</small>
# {{diff|oldid=1271008210|diff=1271008905|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
# () <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 466598920 by ] (]) per ], yes it is")</small>
## {{diff2|1271008695|06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# () <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 466699002 by ] (]) it's not up to me to discuss, per ]")</small>
## {{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:'''
* Diff of warning:
# {{diff2|1271008376|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
# {{diff2|1271010383|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
—] (]) 16:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}} (]<span style="border:1px solid green;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 22:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1986 FIFA World Cup}}
*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)

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Walter Görlitz}}

'''Time reported:''' 16:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

* Revert comparison ("compare"): ().

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

#
#
#

* Diff of warning:

] (]) 16:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

: I recognize that I am at three reverts and plan to stay there. Thanks.
: Fixing first diff while I'm in here. And correcting third as it was the same as the second. --] (]) 19:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:: Sorry, my bad. I should have kept count better! ] (]) 20:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}} (]<span style="border:1px solid green;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 22:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result:12hr ) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Real Madrid C.F.}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|RealCowboys}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
I'm really '''not''' trying to find edit wars! I notice from that RealCowboys has, himself, recognised that he could be seen as edit warring and I had thought he had stopped. However, his attitude and that of another user at ] is also rather lacking in civility. ] (]) 20:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
: We don't ] :-) (]<span style="border:1px solid green;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 21:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:: Agreed. I certainly am not looking for blocks in any case. ] (]) 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
::: This editor and one other appear to be fans of Spanish rival football clubs and it's getting nasty. Longwayround has been helpful in addressing the issues and agree that he may have lost count between the two articles. If the edit wars continue, I may request complete lock on both for a few days so that cooler heads may prevail. --] (]) 21:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: Editor has just made forth revert. Please block for a short period of time so as to not bite the newbie. --] (]) 21:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

* {{AN3|b|12 hours}} (]<span style="border:1px solid green;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 21:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Talk:Mad Men}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|El duderino}}

<!-- 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:

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

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

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No. Did not try to resolve on article talk page, rather, attempted to reason with him on my own talk page after he started a campaign of harassment there, directed at me two nights ago and as an unidentified IP. Please see the following links: ; ; ; ;

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

The article talk page in question contained a section that was started with the OP as a commentary/question as to whether or not the show's producers were attepting to make a statement about smoking. The OP and follow-up comments did not address anything related to the article, rather, only about the show itself. I, therefore, removed these comments per ]. ], not logged in with his account but editing unannounced with two different IPs, replaced the comments along with biting edit summaries numerous times on 12/16/11 (diffs/links listed above) and has continued doing so again today. '''I am reporting this not as 3RR, but edit warring behavior by the above-named editor in an effort to ]''' - the edit warring behavior from this editor began on 12/16/11 as two different IPs. While edit warring at this article talk page, - it was almost immediately removed by ] with the edit summary, "enough already". More of the story can be seen at these versions of the editor's talkpages ( ) associated with the IPs he was using (in myopinion, using them intentionally to sock - thus, the SPI I filed as seen here: ) Based on all of the above, it is my opinion that this editor is being intentionally ] via ] and ] and will continue to do so without hesitation (as evidenced by his continued edit warring behavior today). ] (]) 21:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC) -->

:User:Lhb1239 has also edit warred and this report is an abuse of the 3RR noticeboard. He has been attempting to remove legitimate discussion from the article talkpage. His various attempts to get me blocked all failed. The Vandalism report was denied. The SPI was denied. And the ANI was ignored. Three admins ruled against him and advised him to move along. Before he filed this frivolous report, I submitted this request for ]. -] (]) 21:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}Adding that the user being reported altered this report (see ); I believe doing so speaks further to his edit warring and disruptive editing behaviors. I have reverted the inappropriate changes. ] (]) 21:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
: Why were they inappropriate? They were indeed, stale, and should not be part of this report to begin with. Both of you have been 100% involved with edit-warring on both the article, and the talkpage. IMHO, you should both be blocked to give you more than half a chance to read ]. El duderino - your insistence that you're not violating ] is pathetic - you're continuing to re-add just to piss off the other editor. Likewise, Lhb1239 is simply throwing the shotgun approach around above. How many hours of break would you both like ... 24? 48? 72? A week? You guys choose, and you both get exactly the same. (]<span style="border:1px solid green;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 21:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

::It's my opinion that the edit to the report was inappropriate because when a report has been filed, the involved editor should not be altering the report. If it was inappropriate for me to add them initially you have my apologies, but let an administrator or uninvolved editor say so according to policy - the editor being reported should not remove them (correct?). I added them to show a history - as I stated clearly above, this report was filed for edit warring at a particular article talk page. Is it not true that edit warring can take place over a period of days? That's my understanding of edit warring behavior, anyway. I have no intention of removing the inappropriate content to the article talk page again; I'll just let the archive do it when the time comes. ] (]) 22:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
::: ...and so, how many hours break from Misplaced Pages would the two of you like? Work it out and let me know: you'll both get the same (]<span style="border:1px solid green;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 22:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Are you being serious? I've never heard of such a thing and, frankly, don't understand why I am being punished here. I know blocks are to be preventative not punative, so I don't see how blocking me is going prevent anything disruptive from happening. I've already said I'm not going to be removing the inappropriate content at the article talk page. Perhaps you could explain your thought process on this? ] (]) 22:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Having just read ] in its totality, I can see that even though El duderino acted inappropriately and harassed me on my talk page over a couple of hours on the 17th, I still shouldn't have been afraid to discuss this issue with him when he started up again today -- I especially should have done so before filing this report. At the time I shied away from discussion because I didn't see it would have made any difference and I didn't want to be on the receiving end of more harassment. Now I can see that in trying to discuss I would have been exercising ] and the effort may have encouraged a different course. Don't know if what I've said in this post will make any difference in your thoughts about blocking, but thought I would let you know anyway. ] (]) 23:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
All due respect to BWilkins, I am not re-adding the comments "just to piss off" User:Lhb1239. I sincerely believe it is a worthy point of discussion and his censorship tendencies here are way out of line. His confrontational tone from the beginning just made things worse. ] (]) 01:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
:{{AN3|n}} &mdash; As Bwilkins said, neither editor should be edit warring on a talk page over non-]. While the ] do suggest that it might be ok to remove threads that don't relate to improving the article, they in no way suggest that those comments should be treated as vandalism. As such, there is no exception that allows for edit warring or violations of the ]. Keep in mind that talk pages are basically the only places that editors are able to raise concerns&mdash;they're the places that people can "have a voice" over a page's content&mdash;and if people believe that their voice is being taken away in ''any'' medium, they will typically react negatively. Misplaced Pages is no exception, and as such, edit wars over talk page threads are like edit wars over someone's ability to speak, so, in the future, please keep that in mind and try to avoid such battles. <br/>For now, I'm marking this as {{AN3|w}} with the explicit understanding that if either or both editor(s) continue(s) this edit war from this point forward, they risk being blocked. <br/>--]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 03:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

::I can appreciate that. Yet, for the record at least I must take issue with ]'s continued claims of 'harassment' which are blatantly false and most likely disingenuous. From the very beginning I attempted to discuss the issue on his talkpage to no avail . Then I simply warned him about edit warring, as he did to me both pre-emptively and more recently. He doesn't seem to see his own actions as equivalent to what he complained about as 'harassment.' ] (]) 04:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (result:decline - user never warned) ==

Diffs:
Tried to communicate with the IP on their user talk page (no diff since it was the only edit ever made to that page). ] (]) 21:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
* {{AN3|d}} Not a single warning for 3RR on their page ... one bizarre comment about ], but no welcome, no rules, no "what is 3rr"...nothing. (]<span style="border:1px solid green;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 22:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
:* Add...I have semi'd the page for now. Work it out (]<span style="border:1px solid green;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 22:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|William H. Allen (architect)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Doncram}}

<!-- 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: {{diff|William H. Allen (architect)|466753123|466752041|First addition of extended quote}}

<!-- 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: "{{diff|William H. Allen (architect)|466760357|466758651|restore highly relevant, fully cited and credited quote that would be hard to paraphrase, better to quote. If you don't like it, discuss at Talk.}}"
* 2nd revert: "{{diff|William H. Allen (architect)|466763103|466761873|Restore Whitney Avenue HD mention, which specifically includes Allen house at Whitney & Lawrence, mentioned in suitable quote, also restored.}}"

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

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "{{diff|William H. Allen (architect)|466761214|466760593|Undid revision 466760357 by Doncram (talk) Your use of verbatim quotes in stubs was determined to be unacceptable by an uninvolved admin. Stays out unless you get consensus for inclusion}}"

<!-- 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: None. Original uninvolved admin decision was quite clear.

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

Per ], "There is a consensus that Doncram's excessive use of verbatim quotes, which routinely constitutes a significant portion of the stubs at issue, is unacceptable, especially as it implicates ] (])."

:Argh. I have had it with SarekOfVulcan following my edits and contending at every step. Today he put a speedy-delete tag on an article i was working on, which led to a DRV restoring the article (because the Speedy was wrong). He 4 times moved another article I was working on, article now at ]. Look at its edit history to see his actually exceeding 3RR. And this. And perhaps more. In each case I opened discussion sections and SarekOfVulcan has chosen not to discuss, but rather to escalate and confront. About the ] article, why the hell has he not deigned to comment at the Talk page item.

:Something stronger is needed to address this pattern of following and warring. --]]] 22:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

:Please consider recent, bizarre, ], about another spat of determined edit warring against me. Closed with no negative consequence for Sarek, oddly. I am working to develop articles; SarekOfVulcan is following, interrupting, actively choosing to combat. --]]] 22:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
::I see Orlady has also removed your extended quotations as "inappropriate". --] 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Um, this is an Edit Warring noticeboard that you opened a discussion at. Whatever about your buddy Orlady's kneejerk opposition to me, about a matter not properly addressed here. Is it your intention to ''cause'' edit warring by your confrontationally fighting at the article, and raising it here? I fully get the idea that you are trying really hard to provoke me. Yes, I said "F u" in an edit summary earlier today. Great. Please do try to escalate further. --]]] 00:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}} &mdash; consider ]. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 03:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
**Why is dispute resolution required when an uninvolved admin specifically ruled that Doncram's use of verbatim quotes from sources to pad out his stubs was unacceptable, and Doncram chose to edit war his verbatim quotes back in to the article? --] 03:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
:::That uninvolved admin is free to take action himself. As far as my personal opinion, given the article and editor you reported, there was insufficient recent activity to meet the ], and there was insufficient long-term activity (again, from what I was able to see) to consider it a protracted ]. That said, another admin has since blocked {{User|Doncram}} for 1 week due to personal attacks/harassment. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 19:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' 12 different articles<br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Polaron}}

Multiple contested redirects going on, implemented by Polaron by use of Twinkle, redirecting multiple articles to newly created ].

Articles include (with recent Polaron edit summaries):
#] ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800150 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
#] ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800181 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
#] ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800171 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
#] ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Doncram (talk): All useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
#] ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800158 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
#] ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800204 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
#] ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800210 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
#] ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800194 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
#] ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800217 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
#] ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Doncram (talk): All useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
#] ‎ (all useful content in target) (top)
#] ‎ (all useful content in target) (top)

<!-- 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. -->

<!-- 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: Please see ], at which I sought dialogue some time ago. His not responding, and proceeding with redirects now, plus re-reredirects using Twinkle after I restored many of the articles, is not constructive. --]]] 03:03, 20 December 2011 (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: Mentioned above. --]]] 03:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

:See edit history for any of the above. At a minimum, i ask that Polaron's Twinkle privileges be revoked. --]]] 03:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Just to let everyone know that Doncram has been blocked for a week for personal attacks by Jayron32. ]]<font color="#0645AD"></font> (]) 11:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

== ] and ] reported by ] (Result:both users blocked ) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Deathcore}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|JWULTRABLIZZARD}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Gunmetal Angel}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

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

This is yet again another showdown between Gunmetal Angel and another editor, and it is not violating the 3RR rule in 24 hours, it appears to be more chronic, and I am concerned that the user Gunmetal still shows no signs of understanding of edit warring. I've tried to solve the issue by leaving a message on the talk page of the Article. However, Ironically, Gunmetal Angel appears to have gone into a good approach to dispute with another user. <font face="Book Antiqua">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 03:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

*{{AN3|bb| 24 hours for JWULTRA and one week for Gunmetal as this is their fourth edit warring block}} ] (]) 05:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Park Min-Young}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kellytang}}

<!-- 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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User edit warring with another user and anons and violated 3RR before any warning was given. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
: 6th revert was done after 3RR warning. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

:*I count at least four involved parties, some behaving worse than others but all edit warring. *{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 05:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
:

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lee Min Ho}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Jsyun true}}

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User Edit warring with other users on content issue. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
:See above. *{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 05:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lee Min Ho}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Khushi143}}

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Park Min-Young}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Khushi143}}

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User as seen above is edit warring on two articles with two different users. And I think its important to consider the edits of IPs ] and ] on the above two pages which were probably used by the same user. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

:See above. *{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 05:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result:24 hour block ) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Strict conditional}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hanlon1755}}

<!-- 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: {{diff|Strict conditional|466664766|466663865|09:52, 19 Dec}}

<!-- 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: &nbsp;{{diff|Strict conditional|466671669|466671422|11:11, 19 Dec}} {{nowrap|/ {{diff|Strict conditional|466671669|466664766|(diff to above)}}}}
* 2nd revert: {{diff|Strict conditional|466779239|466776155|23:56, 19 Dec}} {{nowrap|/ {{diff|Strict conditional|466779239|466664766|(incl. minor alt.)}}}}
* 3rd revert: {{diff|Strict conditional|466816573|466798200|05:26, 20 Dec}} {{nowrap|/ {{diff|Strict conditional|466816573|466779239|(with additional alt.)}}}}
* 4th revert: {{diff|Strict conditional|466839171|466837558|10:08, 20 Dec}} {{nowrap|/ {{diff|Strict conditional|466839171|466816573|(incl. alt., +new section w/uncited "references")}}}}
* 5th revert: {{diff|Strict conditional|466882291|466880000|17:00, 20 Dec}} {{nowrap|/ {{diff|Strict conditional|466882291|466839171|(incl. alt. + addt.)}}}}
Ongoing:
* 6th revert: {{diff|Strict conditional|466892214|466890826|18:16, 20 Dec}} {{nowrap|/ {{diff|Strict conditional|466892214|466882291|(diff to 5th)}}}}
* 7th revert: {{diff|Strict conditional|466901463|466892953|19:22, 20 Dec}} {{nowrap|/ {{diff|Strict conditional|466901463|466882291|(diff to 5th)}}}}
:{{small|Updated:] 19:49, 20 December 2011 (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 -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
* {{diff|User talk:Hanlon1755|466749961|466672487|21:04, 19 Dec (warned by Fences and windows)}}
* {{diff|Material conditional|466884467|466883805|17:18, 20 Dec (my editsum when reverting user's 1st rv at Material conditional)}}
* {{diff|Material conditional|466885598|466883805|17:27, 20 Dec (note user's edsum for 2nd rv was "BRD Process")}}
* {{diff|User talk:Hanlon1755|466887838|466840482|17:44, 20 Dec (redundant warning at user's talk)}}

<!-- 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: Ongoing at ] (also at {{diff|User talk:Machine Elf 1735|466888537|466883501|my talk page}}).

<u>Comments:</u> See also, 2 reverts at ]… just a bit too caught up in a single purpose… ''(to be young again).''—] 19:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC) <br />

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

*{{AN3|blocked|24 hours}} ] (]) 19:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 48h) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Global warming conspiracy theory}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|86.** IP}}

<!-- 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: (removes fringe and POV tag)

Note: this page is under 1RR (and probably ARBCC type stuff, too)

<!-- 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: (restores POV and fringe tags)
* 2nd revert: (ditto)

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

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

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Well, you can see the article talk page if you like, also the warning above was an attempt to help, though it didn't go down very well .

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
William's claims of trying to resolve the dispute on the article talk page are laughable: he actually tried to escalate the dispute there. His reversion contains a personal attack, and he has explicitly attempted to shut me up repeatedly surrounding this event

His warning on my talk page was actually an attempt to blackmail me into stopping all discussion, in the entire area of global warming. :
"The usual procedure in this case would be to self-revert, but you can't. The usual fall back is '''to offer to leave the area alone for a while'''"

This is a blatant attempt to abuse process by William. He comes to my talk page, points out something, and then tells me that, because there's nothing I should do, I should stop all editing in '''the entire area''' - then comes here to get me blocked when I note that option as the attempt at abuse of process it is.

I think there's a problem with these articles. William doesn't. Instead of engaging in discussion, Williaam prefers to revert all attempts to discuss it.

Further, the first supposed reversion (it's at least ambiguous) was simply obeying a talk page request to wait to tag until after an AfD closed, and requires looking back a week, ignores the stated reasons for the reversion, which, however invalid I think they are, certainly don't apply now. William is attempting to use a technicality to get me censured, and is lying about his own escalating behaviours.

Surely one can't be given a warning, which tells you there's nothing can be done to undo the 1RR, and then be told to stop all edits in a field or have process be pulled down on you - especially when giving that warning is a ''requirement'' for use of that process? ] (]) 22:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:], WMC is correct in stating that an offer to leave the area alone might be accepted when it is too late to self-revert. Since you have broken the 1RR on this article, which is under ], any offer from you would be carefully listened to. The alternative would seem to be a conventional block for breaking the ], a restriction which is clearly marked on the article's talk page and is logged . ] (]) 04:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
::I seriously don't see how I could do anything, given that it was already reverted when the ''first'' warning about it came into play. I was actually attempting to follow 1RR, but was not aware the first edit would count, because of the changed circumstances and being a somewhat different edit, created ''de novo''.
::This was a simple misunderstanding, I cannot see how a topic ban - which is what William wanted me to agree to for this minor mistake - is justified. Had I been told that the first edit counted when there was something I could have done, I would have happily reverted. But to be told to stop all editing in an entire area because I made a minor mistake by putting up a variation of an edit I made, which edit ''is no longer on the page'' seems ridiculous.
::Blocks are preventative, not punitive. I fail to see how this discussion serves any purpose. It was an honest mistake, which William is using to troll me. ] (]) 04:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
::: If you want folks to give you the benefit of the doubt over a simple misunderstanding, perhaps you should treat them that way when they ]? ] (]) 04:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b}} — 48 hours. Noting that the user declined to make any offer to limit his future edits in this area, as an alternative to a block. A quick look indicates there is some dispute among the parties about when articles ought to be tagged. Tags fall under the revert rules like any other article content, so far as the ] policy goes. Adding to the excitement, ] made what to the article within 24 hours, while this very discussion was in progress. I guess the 1RR wasn't already broken enough. The editor has already been of the discretionary sanctions under ]. He is urged to edit more carefully in the future. ] (]) 05:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

:A welcome respite. However, the problem here is ''not'' an isolated, possibly accidental 1RR, but a broad pattern of disruptive editing. And, unfortunately, will only continue in full blast once the block expires. As this editor seems immune to correction, a permanent block may be necessary. ~ ] (]) 22:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result:not blocked ) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Russell Crowe}}

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Rusted AutoParts}}

'''Time reported:''' 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert: <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 466657383 by ] (])it is normal ng releases to filmography. Please, before reverting again, take it up on the talk page.")</small>
* 2nd revert: <small>(edit summary: "i requested you bring this to the talk page before reverting again, i guess you didn't see that. It's common to add upcoming films to the fimography. If it's cancelled, remove it, date changed? change the date. No reason whatsoever why they can't be.")</small>
* 3rd revert: <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 466806484 by ] (])please read your talk page AND my edit summaries")</small>
* 4th revert: <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 466882468 by ] (])Final time reverting. PLEASE take to talk page so we can discuss this. I'll even start it")</small>

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
I happened across this accidentally. Rusted AutoParts possted on Bidgee's talk page, claiming he had breached 3RR. However, a review of the edit history of ] showed this was not the case; at the time of the post Bidgee had reverted only twice on the article's page in the previous 24 hours. Bidgee's previous revert was 18 hours prior to that. However, Rusted AutoParts had made 3 reverts in under 18 hours, so I placed a 3RR warning on his talk page, noting the above. I included a note that I believed the inclusion was ], which I expanded upon later after realising that the article on the movie being added to ] very clearly failed ]. Despite being active for a 3-hour period after placing his warning on Bidgee's talk page, Rusted AutoParts waited until 2 minutes after the 24-hour mark had passed before making his fourth revert. While this doesn't breach the letter of ], it does breach the spirit of it. --] (]) 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

*{{AN3|not}} I take your point, but as his last revert's edit summary says "Final time reverting. PLEASE take to talk page so we can discuss this. I'll even start it" and I see he has started a discussion at the talk page, I believe a block at this point would be inappropriate. ] (]) 07:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Government}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Count Iblis}}

<!-- 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: (really one revert over two edits, combined with above diff)

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

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

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

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*Count Iblis has been engaging in a slow motion edit war to keep a "failed" tag off of a proposal he wrote that failed, and to keep the "proposed" tag on it despite the fact that he himself has re-written it to the point where the original proposal is long gone and was replaced with a descriptive page that clearly is not a proposal. Three users, including myself, restored the "failed tag" a total of four times. All four have been reverted by Count Iblis. The consensus at the mfd of the page heavily favors the position that this is a failed proposal. The Count is a long term active user and has been involved on the margins of many disputes and therefore is obviously well aware of the edit warring policy and has chosen to ignore not only that but common sense and the emergent consensus at the MFD for the page. (now overdue at 11 days in case anyone would care to close it and possibly render this whole thing moot.) ] (]) 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
::The MfD debate has several well-reasoned 'Keep' votes by experienced editors, and more than one person says it it's logical to keep the proposal but mark it as Failed. In my opinion, if the deletion debate were closed now, Keep is the more likely outcome. I'll notify ] that he may be blocked for edit warring unless he will agree to wait for consensus about the Failed tag. Even though the Count has worked to stave off the 'failed' outcome by revising the proposal, both old and new versions still retain this nutshell, which appears to differ from current policy: ''"This page in a nutshell: A government is a group of editors who have the de-facto exclusive right to make certain types of edits to articles, policy pages, or administrative decisions for a limited time. Governments are always agreed to by consensus."'' ] (]) 05:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

*{{AN3|w}} &mdash; marking as warned per EdJohnston; feel free to re-open / re-report if he continues --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 19:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, I don't have time for these stupid tactical games that are played here and on the proposal page. I was just in it for writing up something that would have cnsensus and the first iteration was just that, one to gauge the opnion the feedback of that would be used in the next version. But I forgot about this proposal for a while and was too busy with other things. But Beeblebrox and a few others are only in it to mark the original version as failed and don't want me to write up something that is acceptable to the community. Yesterday, I had some minutes to spare for Misplaced Pages and I though "let's write in the proposal itself that a formal government system is not acceptable to the community". But then that's acknowledging that the first version is not acceptable, so it would then not be appropriate to mark the latest version as failed. Of course, one can also say that this should be an essay or something else. I really don't care that much, except for the failed tag on any new text. If Beeblebrox wants to copy the original proposal and put a failed tag on that, then he can always go ahead and do that. Then one perhaps needs to discuss if the present version needs to be moved elsewhere. But no such constructive discussions are going on at all, all I hear is a few people shouting "Failed, Failed, Failed" and I can hardly edit here in the little time I have, all the time gets wasted on this and other boards where I basically need to defend the fact that the page was edited. ] (]) 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
:Count Iblis, extensive discussion shows that ] is a failed proposal. If you remove the 'failed' tag again you will most likely be blocked. Edit warring to keep that page looking like a live policy document in Misplaced Pages space is not acceptable. ] (]) 00:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
::This report is obviously not about the validity of the proposal but rather about the manifest fact that he has edit warred to retain his preffered version of a page that is in WP space, not user space. He's been warned to stop already, and has ignored those warnings. Logic and reason have been tried, he has ignored them as well. I'm kind of surprised nobody has done the block. It should be fairly clear that the Count has willingly ignored consensus repeatedly over the course of this incident. The adding of the "proposed" tag at this point is utter nonsense as, by his own admission, ''there is no proposal'', yet he has continued to insist on, defying all logic along with consensus. Another warning is just another thing for him to ignore, by his own admission (see the header on his user and talk pages) he does not believe he is bound by WP policy, andf his actions in this affair reflect that. Another warning seems unlikely to assist in adjusting that perspective. ] (]) 00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
::Very well, I'll make it an essay then. Also, I'm going to raise this issue of using strong arm tactics to prevent constructive editing on AN/I. These days, parts of Misplaced Pages have become a cesspool, better to stay away from there until someone cleans out this whole mess. ] (]) 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
:::The editing history doesn't show that I've edit warred about the actual content of the proposal at all. It does show that Beeblebrox has been acting in a rather aggressive way there. The text now says that the community doesn't want a formal government system, so I really don't see the big deal about people wanting to have the current text marked as a failed proposal, because the original objection was against a formal government system. ] (]) 01:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
::::If you didn't insist on making this look like a real Misplaced Pages policy people might not be so irritated. You have had many months to elicit any support that you were ever going to get. A statements on ] says "Count Iblis rejects most of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines." It is hard not to see ] as part of a crusade in which you are the only crusader. ] (]) 01:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the real issues with this at AN/I. ] (]) 01:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

== ] and other IPS reported by ] (Result: ) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Evil clown}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|198.1.37.220}}

This IP, as well as several others, have been repeatedly adding a lengthy list at ] (as seen in ] of the article, without using any sort of edit summaries or attempts to justify the content. The majority of this article is already a list of pop culture occurrences.

I brought it up at the talk page today, although the IP/s have made no attempt to justify the changes in any way. Additional eyes would be helpful. ] (]) 18:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Carolina–Clemson rivalry}} {{pagelinks|South Carolina Gamecocks football}}<br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|129.252.69.40}}

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:

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:

This IP, which is attributed to the University of South Carolina computer services division, has been edit warring these two pages to delete factual, relevant, and sourced information. I cannot attempt to discuss the issue because there could be hundreds or thousands of people at the university using this IP. This IP has been blocked in the past due to vandalism of pages. I request that this IP be further blocked from these two pages. The IP may also be used by {{userlinks|GarnetAndBlack}}, who has also tried to delete the same information. Two weeks ago, GarnetAndBlack and I were temporarily blocked from one of the pages and asked to resolve the issue together. I have since avoided reverting his contributions and tried to work peacefully to make edits, but he has once again turned it into an effort to skew the contents of the page.--] (]) 20:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)<br>
<u>Comments:</u> <br />

==] reported by ] (Result: 24h)==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Creationism}}

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Zenkai251}}

'''Time reported:''' 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

;Creationism
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 466989498 by ] (])sorry, I meant the name of the linked article")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 467071493 by ] (])it does need to change. do you have a good reason for it not to?")</small>

;Genesis creation narrative
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 466822663 by ] (])"A" is more grammatically correct than "The" when placed before "common"; therefore it's a minor edit")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "proper grammer")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 466823527 by ] (])yes, I realized my typo when it was too late. it needs "most" added in to be grammatically correct")</small>


'''Link to diff of warning''':
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

'''Comments''': User is consistently violating ] (but not 3rr) on a range of articles. He's been consistently warned by a variety of users, both with templates and personal messages, on his talk and article talk pages. His response has always been to remove the warning without comment, often citing claims of "atheist bias" in his edit summary. 5 EW warnings in one month is over the line. See his comment , for instance, where he indicates that since he's "right", the EW warning is invalid. User has received plenty of chances, and needs a block to indicate this is not acceptable behavior and to prevent further disruption. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

'''Update''': And after this report was filed... , and by Zenkai without comment. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
:Exactly what those who were asking for "one more chance for Zenkai" in 2 different ANI-threads will get. He was given a free pass to continue his behavior by community consensus. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} &mdash; I normally check for it, but I was a little distracted and accidentally from another user that . I double checked his talk page history for other recent warnings, and it turns out it definitely wasn't the first (e.g. ). --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 23:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Susan B. Anthony List}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|NYyankees51}}

Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert: 17:37, December 21, 2011. Removed the word "scholars".
* 2nd revert: 19:06, December 21, 2011. Removed the word "scholars".
* No 3rd diff needed, article is under 1RR for abortion topics.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: <br />Also, previous discussion about the word "scholars" at ], ] and ]. Related discussion at ]

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

NYyankees51 has for more than a year been intent on removing the word ''scholar'' or ''scholars'' from the related articles ] and ]. on October 29, 2010, shows how long the dispute has been running.(Note that NYyankees51 was operating a sockpuppet at the time: ].) shows an instance of NYyankees51 removing information about "Anthony scholar ]" providing a solid rebuttal to an SBA List assertion. Again in May 2011 . Much of NYyankees51 work on the article has been to advance the causes of SBA List and to diminish as much as possible the scholarship of those who have spoken out against the organization or against its assertions. Included among the ] is one that is owned by SBA List: 70.21.119.84. At ], another SBA List-owned IP address was listed as a sockpuppet: 75.103.237.18. This shows that NYyankees51 has a close connection to SBA List, and may explain his longterm effort to weaken any scholarly rebuttal. ] (]) 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

:This is more of a technical error than edit warring. I was making many edits to the page and saved one when the edit conflict screen came up because of Binksternet's edit . I saved my edit to replace it and inserted the <nowiki>{{inuse}}</nowiki> template, finished my editing, and removed the template. I should have been more careful and actually looked at the edit conflict before replacing it, but I was working hard and I didn't. Had I put the <nowiki>{{inuse}}</nowiki> template in from the start, the issue could have been avoided, and that's my fault. But this isn't blatant edit warring as much as a technical error. Also, the conflict of interest allegation was addressed months ago, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up. ] (]) 01:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

::An edit conflict on a 1RR article is a big red flag. It should bring your new contribution to a complete halt so you can determine whether your continued editing is in violation. I gave you plenty of opportunity to revert yourself, and you did not. You still have not as of this moment. ] (]) 01:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
::This is not solely a 1RR issue. The information about your past editing is there to show that the issue is also longterm edit warring, despite multiple talk page discussions. ] (]) 01:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
:::We both have engaged in long-term edit warring. In a dispute between two editors, there cannot be just one editor edit-warring. ] (]) 01:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
:NYyankees51, is there a reason you have not self-reverted the contested material as requested? ] ] 01:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
::Sorry, I'm tired. ] (]) 01:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}} An accidental overwrite seems to make sense given the string of edits; presuming that the self revert covered the contested material, this seems resolved. If that didn't cover it, let me know what the problem is and I'll make the edit. ] ] 01:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|User talk:Bidgee}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Bidgee}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest revision as of 19:52, 22 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

    It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Based on this, it could be meaty as well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --Dennis Definition (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Of course you stand by the revision. You show up less than 12 hours after Gigga gets blocked, and perform the exact same revert. Dodgy. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

    All I did was self-reverting, the article had no significant history before my contribution. What you are describing as "copy-pasting", is me putting my own creation in a new page. As I have explained in many places, in the WP:Teahouse, and elsewhere. My rationale is very simple, Misplaced Pages must distinguish between valid-article-creators and redirect-page-creators. I currently count as the latter. Which don't think is fair. Xpander (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Wetman and on the article's info page. Xpander (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Widr (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      I undid that block and restored it because simply removing the block isn't really an option in response to actually disruptive editing, but the IP editor's behavior wasn't the main issue in this edit war. I'll send warnings around to people who should know better. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Read the bright read box at WP:3RR (. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Objective3000 So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. Ergzay (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. Ergzay (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. Ergzay (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:3RR: There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. – RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. Ergzay (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
    The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. Ergzay (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording "LMAO, this is as trustworthy as Fox News" followed by "cannot see the pertinence of this" after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. Ergzay (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    What is a CTOP? Ergzay (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    A CTOP is a WP:CTOP. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. Ergzay (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    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)

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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