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 16:54, 19 May 2013 view sourceNeo. (talk | contribs)2,253 edits →User:Neo. reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: ): fix← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:51, 23 January 2025 view source Closed Limelike Curves (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,187 edits →User:68.150.205.46 reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: Reported user had self-reverted before the report was made): ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}<noinclude>{{offer help}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}]{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
<!--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
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 214 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}</noinclude><!--<?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. -->


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected indef) ==
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of religious slurs}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Talk:Kurgan hypothesis}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|50.72.139.25}}


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.)"
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{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.)"
#
# {{diff2|1270039369|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
#
# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
#
# # "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1270041824|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|1270040704|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
# {{diff2|1270045411|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
User 50.72.139.25 / 50.72.177.136 gets into a tremendous snit, and launches into extended ranting tirades and pointless personal attacks, if everyone doesn't agree with him 100% about everything. His actions have already resulted in semi-protection for the article and a temporary ban for himself. The natural place to ask for help about his current assault on the article talk page would be "Requests for page protection", but they've adopted some kind of policy of deliberate intentional ineffectuality in this type of case (see ]), so I'm coming here... ] (]) 21:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:I am enjoying the edit war because I know for a FACT that Kurgan Theory is a fringe theory for NON-linguists who actually fail to understand that language works as a series of waves, not like in genetics where there is a clear ancestry and a clear direction of inheritance. If I QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AS DETAILED AS BRITANNICA and this asshole is telling me that a single book from a single author 'has more weight' (POV!) , yeah I tell you to fuck yourself because WP becomes a video game. So let's play! Rock on!


:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
:The majority think Misplaced Pages is stale and shoots itself in the foot. I want to help the necrosis along by arguing in favour of most widely accepted academic views while telling assholes to fuck off and die. LOL! This obviously means that I am "bad" to the simplistic talentless unacademic WP admin trolls because they want to live in a digital ivory tower where their mediocrity is left unchallenged. Aw poor babies. Have a hot dog. Lol. Ah this is fun. (By the way, if you want to silence me, just block all of 50.72.*.* and stop *all* Canadians from editing. Stop everyone too! YAY! Good job.) ] (]) 00:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. I blocked .25 for a week. .136 hasn't edited since May 7, so I left them alone. The article is already semi-protected. If necessary, I will semi-protect the talk page as well. I've put it on my watchlist, but just in case I miss it, please alert me if there are more problems.--] (]) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
:] (]) 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: Both blocked) == == ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|<!-- Place name of article here -->Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->DragonTiger23}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GiggaHigga127}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
<!-- 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. -->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
# – same
# – same
# – same
# – same, now with PA


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# (removing the word Circasians from the infobox)
# (again)
# (again)
# (removing pov tag)
# (again)
# (again)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
DragonTiger23 displays typically ] activity during the recent 24h in the specific article. The reverts started when D.23 wanted to remove the word "Circassians" from the infobox and the lead, claiming that the relevant (]) citation that supports this, is for an unexplained reason wrong. Although I wasn't the only user that advised him that this isn't enough to reject the specific claim so easily, he responded by making aggressive comments in his edit summaries , removing even the pov tag, without waiting for the discussion to reach an end. I've tried to resolve the issue in every way possible: on the article talk page, as well as advised him kindly that he should calm down. I even told him gently that a pov tag needs to be removed after the issue is settled ] but in vain.] (]) 21:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
See here: ]
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.
User Alexikoua is extremely pov pushing and source abusing, he is trying to justify, cover up, deny and shift the blame to others in a massacre of Turks by the Greek army. This massacre is documented by an inter allied Neutral Western report. Still he is trying to cover up the massacre, he states that he is of Greek ancestry this may explain his non neutral denying behavior.] (]) 16:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


As far as middleweight goes, Benn has ''never competed anywhere close to that weight class''. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, ] and ] should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had ] regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. ] would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. ] (]) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I have talked pages on the talk page see here but they are not neutral so it has no effect. ]] (]) 16:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
:It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. ] (]) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Based on , it could be ] as well. ] (]) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --] (]) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Of course you stand by the revision. You show up less than 12 hours after Gigga gets blocked, and perform the exact same revert. Dodgy. ] (]) 19:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
::I've added an additional dif of the latest (6th) rv, since DragonTiger23 still reverts the pov tag placed by various users.] (]) 17:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb|48 hours}}.--] (]) 23:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tübingen School}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Kidd Creole}} <br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xpander1}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Nathaniel Glover jr}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- 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. -->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# {{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:'''
<!-- 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|1270589185|07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
This is a bit tricky; after removing ] from ], I received an eMail from ] saying 'please don't edit my article', and that he had reinstated the category. I just reverted on the grounds that it was a ridiculous request and currently, I'm at three reverts and he's at four. The following is the eMail conversation:
*I'm sure your trying but PLEASE DO NOT EDIT this page (The Kidd Creole) any more I DO NOT need you to contribute to it no one knows more about subject than me so I repeat PLEASE DO NOT EDIT this page (plus you keep taking out Black American Emcee's stop this it's annoying....it's like you have something against this category?....you shouldn't because most of the rappers are Black American) your not adding anything so I wish you would stop....thank you
**I've only edited it once and that was to remove the category. Create the category, and then we'll talk about it.
***Let's be adult about this there's nothing to discuss please do not edit the page any more please....thank you
****No. The page, or indeed any article, shouldn't contain nonexistent categories. If there is enough pages to fit the category, it will be created. Also, if you are Kidd Creole, you shouldn't be writing about yourself - although you've seen the messages on your talk pages. I won't flog a dead horse.
*****If we we're face to face would you have the same attitude? And I'm sure you (and I) have better things to do. Can you just stop please okay what what difference does it make to you whether not the categories nonexistent how do you know if I'm going to create a category. Okay stop being a child alright be an adult and stop editing the page okay just stop....thank you
******Absolutely. As I've said, create the category first. Now please read http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:3RR before proceeding further.
*******What are you some kind of Internet nerd hiding behind a computer? I wish you would just leave me alone okay you need to just find some other category to edit....there are thousands of them you need to leave me alone okay because you're annoying me Leave me alone and leave the Page alone
Multiple policies have been violated, so a longer than usual block would be appreciated. Thank you.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}} ] ] ] ] &spades; 18:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|House of Shennib}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|AShennib}}


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)
<!-- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=House_of_Shennib&diff=553525338&oldid=553523667. -->


: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)
Previous version reverted to:
::As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on ] and on the . ] (]) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


The Teahouse discussion can be found (for now) at ]. Please see also ] and ]. ] (]) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- 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. -->
:{{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)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
::'''Addendum''': I also commend ] to {{u|Xpander1}}'s attention. ] (]) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
#


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 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 -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Oriel High School}}
<!-- http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ashennib -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
*{{AN3|s}}.--] (]) 21:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|92.238.20.255}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Gustave Whitehead}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Tomticker5}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1270686162|19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
# {{diff2|1270685824|19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
# {{diff2|1270685483|19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
# {{diff2|1270684934|19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
# {{diff2|1270683674|19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"


Diffs of the user's reverts:
# 17:42 May 14 – reverts to restore "eyewitness accounts"
# 18:30 May 14 – reverts to restore "eyewitness accounts"
# 20:09 May 14 – reverts to restore "eyewitness accounts"
# 00:52 May 15 – partial revert to restore "eyewitness accounts"


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:36 May 14 –


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==
Tomticker5 changed the page today to put a more convincing summary in place, one that makes Gustave Whitehead look more like he was a successful flyer. He was reverted four times, two times each by two other editors, and he reverted/restored four times the phrase "eyewitness accounts". ] (]) 01:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
:I don't agree that a reference to the Wright brothers must be in the first few introductory sentences of Gustave Whiteheads article to establish notability. The "controversy" is over whether he flew or not in 1901 lies mostly with the Smithsonian. There have been several recent statements by leading aviation authorities that he did in fact fly in 1901. In my opinion, you must cite the root cause of the controversy at the Smithsonian. The flight was witnessed by an editor of a newspaper and several other people who later swore out affidavits that Whitehead flew in 1901. You must also, for the sake of the reader of this article who is not familiar with the Wright brothers, and insert the date of their flights that occurred two years later in 1903. Then, the reader will understand that the credibility of the eyewitnesses who saw Whitehead fly in 1901 are being put in doubt by some not all aviation historians and the flights made by the Wright brothers, two years later, are considered first by some, but not all leading aviation historians.] (]) 01:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
::I agree with Tomticker5. Actually, Binksternet is trying to control the Gustave Whitehead page as he/she has been guarding it and continuing to insert misleading information. This was occurring with my edits several weeks ago. Gustave Whitehead has been recognized by the only non-conflicted world authority there is, Jane's All the World Aircraft, "the aviation bible", as first in flight. There are fanatics regarding the Wright Brothers who see it nearly (or virtually) as a religion that are very incensed by this appropriate, well-considered recognition. They continually try to disparage any recognition. Smithsonian cannot weigh in on this as they are bound by legal contract to only recognize the Wrights as first in flight. This page on Gustave Whitehead needs to accurately and neutrally reflect the credit Whitehead has been given and what the controversy was, but mostly focus on the accomplishments of Whitehead. The "Wrighteous" need to stop bashing Whitehead, they are the ones doing the edit warring. Binksternet is definitely in need of monitoring and reporting. This page should not be vandalized by the attacks of those Wright-favoring fanatics who cannot accept that Whitehead has been determined to fly first. In fact, B. may be a Smithsonian plant or employee, in my opinion. I support Tomticker5 wholeheartedly. We cannot have history defaced. ] (]) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


'''Page:''' ] <br />
::Note that Tomticker5 has not addressed the root issue of reverting-type behavior. He emphasizes the content dispute but this noticeboard is for behavior. AviationHist1 continues in the same vein, describing the content dispute. ] (]) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kelvintjy}}
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}}.--] (]) 02:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|AC/DC_(disambiguation)}} <br />
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|K7L}}
# 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


<!-- 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. -->


Original version:


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#


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


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


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


Hello
<!-- 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 -->
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-->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on another article talk page where consensus was against these actions:
*{{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)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
<u>:Discussions had taken place regarding broadening the article ] where this editor could not receive any consensus, from three other editors, to include more types of equipment into this article. He was told that the lede clearly stated the topic inclusion since inception in 2008 with it's first edit. With a failure to inject off-topic ''AC/DC motors'' edits into the article he moved to the disambiguation page to edit the link to include his topic change to include ''AC/DC equipment'' not covered by the article. ] has also reverted his edits to the article topic. Although, technically this editor has not reached four similar edits on this exact page ] s/he was aware that the edits were not desirable and an incorrect description, of the article linked to, from previous negative result consensus discussions. Edits on the disambiguation page were ] and against these previous article talk page discussions. </u> <br />


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
] (]) 03:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ergzay}}
:The IP "reporting" this is revert-warring me, namely leaving messages on my talk page threatening 3RR complaints and then reverting ] once again to their preferred version. There was no consensus from other editors as the question of whether the scope of the article includes off-line SMPS is still under discussion at ]. Furthermore, the only discussion on the disambig page is about ]. This would appear to be one IP who has decided that AC/DC (electricity) excludes the "AC/DC motor" (not just the off-line ]) and has taken ]ership of the article unilaterally. Removing valid information from articles just to reduce their scope to one particular radio design which has been obsolete since the 1970s (or earlier) is neither constructive nor helpful. "AC/DC motor" does belong in ], regardless of one IP's love for a completely obsolete vacuum tube radio which used the term on its nameplate. If this user wants to turn ] into a discussion of one device instead of any device operable from DC, perhaps that article should be on another title to indicate that it's about just the ] (we already have ] radio which overlaps such a proposed article by at least 50%, were it created). This is agenda-pushing and I'm disappointed to see it as ] is AC/DC and is electrical. ] (]) 13:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::Looking more closely, the first of my edits listed is not a revert and should not have been mislabelled as such. ] (]) 15:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Please read ]. You boldly edited and were reverted by ]. Without talk page discussion you then injected the same edit again and I corrected your edit. You again injected the same ] edit and I reverted it again, after the warning on your talk page. Your rash of confusion misinformation spewed above is not supported by edit histories. No talk page discussion was initiated by yourself (the onus was on you) on the disambiguation page but previous discussion on the ] talk page, you were involved in, clearly indicates three editors do not want your '''AC/DC motor''' subject matter inserted in the article and each of your attempts was reverted by other editors. Then you shopped for another injection article ] with attempts to broaden the article content again. That '''is''' editwarring. Currently you have begun to fling personal attacks on myself with IPsockpuppet insults], as well as suggesting I don't understand English.] As suggested previously to you in discussions ]. Thank you. ] (]) 02:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*{{AN3|nv}}. ] (]) 23:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270879182|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small|(edit: corrected diff)}}


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|TV7 (Bulgaria)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|The TV Boy}}


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


Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&oldid=554676299


] 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)
This was on the List of missing references, which is where I came in. I did small edits to clear error.


:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
::@] 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)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
:::]: {{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)
# ] reverted my corrections and the previous contribution<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&diff=prev&oldid=554850969
::::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 reverted that reversion<br />] again reverted <br />https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&diff=prev&oldid=555016025
::::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)
# I reverted that reversion, and issued {{tl|uw-3r}}<br />] deleted the warning from his talk page. Then he reverted again<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&diff=prev&oldid=555193894
:::::]: {{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)
:::This is an incorrect characterization of the discussion. The people you were edit warring with said, correctly, that he was accused of having made what looks like the Nazi salute. As you know from the video and the sources provided, this is objectively correct. You just don't like the fact that reliable sources said this about him. Nobody is trying to put "Elon Musk is a Nazi" in the article. ] (]) 23:34, 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)
:::::"Use wide open eyes and use rational thinking (as defined by me)" seems to implicate ], as well. ] (]) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected one week; IP range blocked two weeks) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul Cézanne}}
<!-- 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:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}}
<!-- 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 -->
We have talked via comment on edit plus user page talk


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{diff|oldid=1271008210|diff=1271008905|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I have no interest in Bulgarian TV per se. I am only interested in people following rules. I have already brought ] to attention of ]
## {{diff2|1271008695|06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|1271008905|06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1271007344|06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1271006989|06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
#


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
] (]) mytime= Wed 12:14, wikitime= 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1271008376|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
:Why are you reporting me? I've tried to explain to the dynamic IP editors that this information is not approprite for the article on the English Wiki, where there is only general info about the channel. This information is about a case that even I didn't know it existed and even though it had referencies it has no encyclopedic value. The dynamic IP's come from Bulgaria, so I've asked them to put the information on the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages. They just keep reverting my edits and say that they are harmed by TV7 and whant everybody in the world to see this. This is a very small thing just trying to give an international bad image to the channel. It violates Misplaced Pages core values of neutrality.--] (]) 13:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1271010383|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."
*{{AN3|p}}. I've fully protected the article for a week. The material removed by The TV Boy has no business being in the article as it was presented and sourced, but not necessarily for the reasons articulated by The TV Boy. Putting aside how badly worded it was, the sources are completely unreliable and cannot be used in almost any context, let alone in an attack on the station.--] (]) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result:Blocked for username violation) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Neo-Nazism}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Whitechristian2013}}


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Reported user had self-reverted before the report was made) ==
Previous version reverted to:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Droop quota}}
<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#
#
#


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|68.150.205.46}}
<!-- 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:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- 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: Already discussed at ]


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


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:*Overtaken by other events: Daniel Case blocked this user for username violation. --] (]) 15:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
# {{diff2|1270714484|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ reply to Quantling"
# {{diff2|1270714531|22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit reply to Quantling"
# {{diff2|1270714949|22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ addition"
# {{diff2|1270715070|22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit addition"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Horus Heresy (novels)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|70.19.122.39}}


User has been edit-warring for the past 9 months to try and reinsert incorrect information into the article, despite repeatedly having had this mistake corrected, and a consensus of 5 separate editors against these changes. Request page ban from ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 22:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


:{{u|Closed Limelike Curves}}, the user appears to have self-reverted less than an hour after their last edit warring continuation, and 14 hours before your report. ] (]) 00:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:
::Thanks, I missed that (I didn't notice the last edit was a self-revert). ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:68.150.205.46, thanks for self-reverting. Can you agree not to re-add the same material until a real consensus is found? An ] could help. ] (]) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
# (This is different material being reverted, but still edit warring)

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

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

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
A previous report ] without any third-party comment of any kind. IP editor is continuing extreme ] behavior on the article by reverting any edits by any other editor outside of small spelling corrections and other minor edits, and insisting on excessive hidden text that is contrary to ] and ]. IP editor has violated 3RR. - ]] 00:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. Both editors were edit warring. However, I blocked only the IP because of the nature of the IP's edits, which were disruptive. @SudoGhost, I understand why you reverted so many times, but your only policy-based exemption is vandalism. The IP's edits were unconstructive, but I wouldn't recommend handling it the way you did in the future as you expose yourself to unnecessary risk.--] (]) 01:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
:*I agree I'm certainly not blameless in the whole edit warring thing, but I didn't realize exactly how many times I reverted until after the fact (not that that excuses it). I'll be more mindful of that in the future and use ] or ] or something. - ]] 01:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}
i believe that the reasoning given by ] does not justify this block. the edits he thinks "unconstructive" and "disruptive" were factually, nothing of the sort. i request that a corrective entry to that effect be entered in this ip's block log. past experience shows that sloppy administrators may concentrate their "investigation" to perusal of the block log instead of the case's merits. thank you. ] (]) 13:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
:Nope. Your block was affirmed by two other admins as justified (I'm excluding King of Hearts's decline, since it was procedural). The fact that you've already gone right back to reverting the same article shows it was wholly justified. If you keep it up, you're just going to get blocked again. ] ] 14:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
::Due to continued reverting of the article after expiry of his initial AN3 block the IP editor has been blocked for one month. ] (]) 17:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

{{Archive top|result=The signal to noise ratio is out of control. No more.--] (]) 00:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)}}

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hurly-Burly (journal)}}<br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Refusecollection}}

<!-- 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: (with my category preference) or (with sourcing problems noted). Article already has a "notability" tag on it. And it went through a AFD recently.

<!-- 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. -->
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 -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Second 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: , , , , <br> Plus I tried to discuss my reasoning on Refusecollention's talk page.

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
I was trying to help the article by reducing the overcategorization and removing a huge template that overwhelmed the article. When that was reverted, I tried to suggest other ways the article needed better sourcing, because there aren't solid sources to support the article's notability. The sources are either comments, or only mention the topic of the article peripherally. But the editor refused to consider any of my problems with the article and reverted every edit I made within minutes. Maybe I'm not doing the right thing here, as it's his article. ] (]) 02:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

* In response to ]'s comment. I appreciate that, inspired by the notability tag, said user applied him/herself to altering the article, and quite possibly with the best of intentions. I reverted the various edits, as I have explained on the Talk Page, because the said user was requesting: a) that the "Psychoanalysis" template should be removed (when other Psychoanalytic journals carry this template, for ex: ], or at least it did until today when said user removed it after I quoted it as an example on the Talk Page); b) that the selected list of contributors be referenced, when clearly this is in no way a contentious issue; c) that the brief description of the journal content be referenced, when clearly this too is in no way contentious. Furthermore, said user alleged that: d) the existing references do not include the content they purport to include (which I refuted on the Talk Page). I respect the good faith of said user in seeking to alter the page in such a way as to improve notability, but none of these items will influence the notability of the journal, nor justify its notability in the article. In his/her attempted defence of his/her edits, ] has shown a strong degree of incoherence and inconsistency. I repeatedly asked said user to be more specific in stating his/her qualms, and to refrain from altering the page directly until agreement could be reached on the Talk Page. I think the discussion on the Talk Page will speak for itself, but I remain available for further comment.
] (]) 03:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. Perhaps both of you can explain what the policy justification is for your edit warring. Hint: the correct answer is there is none. I'd like to see an acknowledgment from both of you that your conduct has been disruptive and that you won't do it again. If I had more time (I'm about to go off-wiki), I'd extract a promise from you that neither of you can edit the article at all for seven days to avoid being blocked. Instead, I'll let another admin handle this as they see fit.--] (]) 03:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
<s>:*I will acknowledge that there wasn't a reason to edit war. I've never done so before. I won't do so again and I apoligize for the disruption. ] (]) 03:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)</s>
* Dear ]. Thank you for your comment. For my part, I would prefer to see the page stay as it is, and so for me there would be no problem whatsoever with not touching it for 7 days. I haven't added anything at all to the article, of which I am the original author, for some months now. My only activity today has been to undo what I saw to be unwarranted edits from ]. The quicker this can be put behind us the better. ] (]) 03:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
:*The edit war notice above refers to both Farrajak ''and'' yourself, Refusecollection. And just now, somebody else than Farrajak made an edit and you despite the above warnings. That's your fourth or fifth revert in the last 15 hours, meaning that you are way beyond what 3RR allows. --] (]) 14:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
*I would accept this version by ] which was just now reverted by Refusecollection. ] (]) 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
* Dear all, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I may be using/respecting poorly WP protocol. I am a very occasional WP user with a poor grasp of the codes and mores. I welcome any enlightenment on this issue, and will try to abide by the rules, which generally seem to have been put in place to make WP a wholesome working environment. My question, however, is quite simple: what do I do when an article I care about is altered, in my view unnecessarily, and the editor does not engage in a coherent way on the Talk Page? I'm being told that I'm breaking the rules, but no one is willing to talk about the nature of these non-sensical alterations. I've clearly stated my reservations on the Talk Page, no one has responded coherently. ] (]) 16:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
:*That is incorrect. Farrajak explained what they thought is wrong with the article on the talk page. Your response basically was "you're wrong" and "this is absurd" and subsequently reverted every change to the article by them and others. The main contention seems to be two templates, one "not in citation" (I have no opinion on that one, as it is not a resource that is online and I don't have a printed copy available). The other template asks for a source for the remark in the article that the journal "includes texts by major psychoanalysts and prominent figures from contemporary philosophy and cultural theory". This seems to me a perfectly reasonable request. Note that you cannot source such a remark to the journal itself. Nor can you say: "persons A and B published in it and they are prominent so this is true", you need an ''independent'' reference for things like this. As for the overcategorization, this also seems to be a reasonable remark from Farrajak. For example, it is categorized as "psychoanalytic studies". A journal is not a study, even though it may publish the results of such studies. Journals are not usually included in "studies" categories. So this issue should at least be discussed on the talk page before starting an edit war over it. In fact, starting or participating in an edit war is only justified when the edits you are reverting are clear vandalism, which is not the case here. Please familiarize youself with the appropriate guidelines and policies, such as ]. If you have a disagreement with an editor, the appropriate strategy is ''not'' to say "you are wrong" and subsequently revert any edit to ], but to discuss the issues on the talk page and if that doesn't lead to a mutually agreeable solution, there are our ]. Continuing like you have been doing will only result in a block (as you have, in fact, already merited by your many reverts of edits to the article today). --] (]) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
* With all respect Randykitty, you are mistaken on all points: 1. I reverted changes by Farrajak and no other editor (the edit from this morning by Epicgenius merely attempted to reinstate Farrajak's edit without discussion on the Talk Page); 2. Farrajak tagged a cn at the end of the sentence you have just cited ("includes texts by..." etc) when the very next sentence lists a selection of authors published, with hyperlinks to their WP profiles. My assertion on the Talk Page was that it would be absurd to include a footnote to support such a non-contentious claim. Farrajak did not dispute this on the Talk Page. 3. The template edits by Farrajak were separate from the cn edits, but in his/her response to my queries it is nigh-on impossible to distinguish what his/her qualms over the templates are. I offered an example of a similar template used for a similar journal featured in a WP article. Farrajak simply removed the template from the article with no further remark on the Talk Page. Lastly, whilst I am grateful for the links you have provided which will surely fill in some of my oversights in respecting WP protocol, may I kindly ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth, or describing my actions in a dismissive way. I have never shouted down another editor. I have never said "you are wrong" or "this (edit/user) is absurd". I expressed my frustration at Farrajak's unwillingness to pursue the dialogue on the Talk Page whilst he/she continued to make further edits that were equally bizarre. ] (]) 18:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
** With due respect, I was merely trying to revert to the version before the edit war. There should be no discussion about that. ]<sup>(] • ])</sup> 20:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
*If 3RR is really a rule, then Refusecollection continues to break it. Whatever the reason, Refusecollection should stop the continued reverting. Everyone has a reason, but Refusecollection has exceded the 3RR and continues to revert. ] (]) 20:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
* If I have broken a rule, then perhaps there will indeed be some kind of consequence for me, which I am perfectly willing to accept. What I find unfortunate is that I am trying to pursue a conversation. A conversation that I would have preferred to have been confined to the Talk Page. You brought it here. So be it. Why are you more interested in seeing me punished/rebuked than in arguing out a point. I am genuinely curious as to how you think the page might be improved and what your rationale is for the edits you've proposed. ] (]) 20:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
:*], I respected the request of ], but I see that's a one way street and you have disregarded it. Why do you think ] doesn't apply to you? '''You are continuing to edit war'''. ] is not ]. As pointed out above by ], the article, my requests were reasonable. But even if they weren't, that doesn't entitle you to edit war. ] (]) 21:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
* Look, let's be clear about the qualitative nature of what happened here, rather than counting edits and reverts. Yesterday we agreed not to alter the page further. A third-party, seemingly unaware of this discussion, reinstated one of your edits, shortly after our agreement, and I undid it, with a note referring him to this discussion. The said third-party (Epicgenius) has since admitted that he/she was not seeking to enter the discussion. The page as it currently stands is exactly as it was when we agreed not to pursue the "edit war" any further. What's the problem? Furthermore, I think you are failing to see the difference between "my article" and "an article I care about". I am not in the least bit precious about the information in the article being from my hand. I just don't want it to contain anything sloppy or non-sensical.] (]) 22:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
:* A third party is perfectly free to edit that page at any time. It's only you and me that were edit warring and it's only you and me that the sanction applies to. '''But you are continuing to edit war'''. <br>Everyone has "an article I care about". That's the reason for the 3RR rule. Because editors who "care about" an article are likely to try to enforce their point of view over other editors. That's what you're doing. "Caring about" an article makes editors '''more likely''' to edit war. It pollutes your neutrality. It's not an excuse to edit war. ] (]) 22:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:We should just lock up the page till the kids work this all out!] (]) 22:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:*So this edit warring rule, the 3RR, is just a joke? Doesn't apply to editors you think are "kids" or joke editors? And I've apologized for no reason while Refusecollection is allowed to enforce his version? I don't get the point then. What's the point of this whole reporting thing if the result is it's just "kids". So the rule isn't real or it isn't applied equally to editors you don't take serious? ] (]) 22:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. Apparently going off wiki, getting some sleep, and going to my real job is not permitted. I'll cut to the chase. Farrajak has it right, and Refusecollection has it wrong. Atlhough I did not require a promise of no editing, I'm surprised that Refusecollection would revert another editor so quickly, for whatever reason. So, Refusecollection, what you need to do is self-revert. If you do that and if you leave the article alone for 7 days (same goes for Farrajak), you will avoid being blocked.--] (]) 23:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
:*So does that mean you'll block him if he doesn't? Or is it just me who will be blocked if I touch the article? And what's the time frame? Refusecollection clearly doesn't get it. This has been going on for quite a while with no remedy while Refusecollection continues to flout the rule. What's the deal, when I seen other requests speedily decided? ] (]) 23:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
:**Most probably, the page is going to be fully protected until the issue is worked out. ]<sup>(] • ])</sup> 23:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

* Dear ]. Thank you for your reply. As I was starting to suspect, I have infringed WP rules and this puts me in the "wrong" as you phrase it. I've done everything in my power to pursue the dialogue and explore the rationale behind Farrajak's edits. I've failed. I'm afraid I simply can't bring myself to do make the revert you request. Reinstating sloppy, incoherent and poorly-argued editing is simply against my principles. If being blocked is the price I must pay, so be it.] (]) 23:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
:*{{AN3|b|24 hours}}. I've blocked Refusecollection for 24 hours. I've also made it clear on their talk page that after the block expires, if they resume edit warring on the article, they risk a longer block. @Farrajak, you should not edit the article for 7 days. You are welcome to discuss changes to the article on the talk page. I do not intend to revert Refusecollection's last edit as I am not taking a content position. The same would be true if I locked the article. If it seems to you, Farrajak, that Refusecollection has "won", don't look at it that way. You've avoided a block by behaving responsibly, and you can still argue for your changes on the talk page to try to obtain a consensus for your views. Nothing on Misplaced Pages is permanent, and very little is urgent. Deliberation is constructive.--] (]) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Just as I suspected! So now we'll see if this whole exercise is for real or just a joke. What happens now, Bbb21? Or is it just that ]'s version will be locked into place for seven days and then the whole thing begins again? This really seems like favoring a serial reverter at the expense of me, an editor too stupid to think the rules were real. ] (]) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
::*Our edits overlapped, Farrajak. Please tone it down a notch.--] (]) 00:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

*Blocked for 24 hours, while I'm not allowed to touch the page for seven days! I've discussed the page with ] until I'm blue in the face. Also, so has ]. This is a joke, and I have retract my apology. Sorry I stupidly made it. And he even has a meatpuppet or whatever. I can't take this seriously anymore. I ask you to retract the 24 hour block as it's meaningless and an idiotic gesture. It just reinforces how stupid I am. What's the point? ] (]) 00:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
::Hi Farrajak, the thing is that if your version is best, other editors will agree with you. Go to the talkpage and ask for a ] or even start a ] to get other people involved. Getting others involved is key, and there is no massive urgency to have a final decision about which is best. It might take a week or two. But that's fine in the general scheme of things. ] (]) 00:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
::*You're kidding, right? No one cares about that article. And I'm not stupid enough to put energy into any more wiki "processes". You see what happened here. I don't believe any of that now. I see what happens to ]. Nothing but a waste of energy. He'll get his way. I was stupid to think that anything fair would happen. ] (]) 00:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:::*If you '''''really''''' need help sorting this out, you can ask at the ] and an admin will help you. ]<sup>(] • ])</sup> 00:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}

== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected.) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Scarlett Johansson}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Dismas}}

<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scarlett_Johansson&diff=542750027&oldid=542749657
# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scarlett_Johansson&diff=543143898&oldid=543140461
# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scarlett_Johansson&diff=542964776&oldid=542964265
# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scarlett_Johansson&diff=542961287&oldid=542955149


<!-- 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 ~~~~ -->

*{{AN3|p}} The edits linked in the report took place over two months ago. In addition, the editor making the report was edit-warring, so if any action had been taken against any individuals it would certainly have included blocking that editor. However, since it is a very long-running dispute among numerous editors, page protection is more appropriate than blocking individual editors. ] (]) 11:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
::*Actually, this anon is just evading the many blocks set up again Jskylinegtr. I'll go reset and expand the range blocks. With the possible exception of Rusted Auto Parts, none of the other participants edit-warred, and even his borderline behaviour has stopped. I think this protection is inappropriate.&mdash;](]) 15:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|IRS Tea Party investigation}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|NorthBySouthBaranof}}

<!-- 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. -->

I am concerned by massive deletions by NorthBySouthBaranof and have asked him multiple times in the Talk page to discuss the deletions, so that material can be improved.

He insists on deleting and re-deleting the material instead of engaging on the talk page.

We've slipped into an edit war, which I'm not proud of, and would like moderation so that we can reach a resolution that generates a high quality article while addressing all concerns.

<!-- 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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AIRS_Tea_Party_investigation&diff=555381177&oldid=555375013

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
:It takes two to edit-war, and the reporting user here has arguably violated ] by blindly reverting attempts at rewrites, but I don't intend to request a block. As it stands now, the article repeats itself about three times. ] (]) 16:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

*{{AN3|p}} Looks like there is some discussion started on the talkpage. I've protected the page for 3 days to allow that to mature. I or any other admin can unprotect if you sort things out before then. ] (]) 00:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Mexican American}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Tejanorules}}

<!-- 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. -->
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 -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning not explicitly made. Possible vandalism warning made here: . User responded to reverts of their edits and .

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None.

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User has been reverted by multiple (two) users. They have received notifications on their talk page in regards to images and ] and they have continued to revert changes. I can do nothing more than escalate the matter as the user appears to have no intention of reading talk page messages or understanding Misplaced Pages's policy. --] (]) 03:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:'''NOTE''': While constructing this notice, the user has reverted for the fourth time . --] (]) 03:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

*{{AN3|not}} - Tejanorules has never been given any warning that suggests their behavior could lead to a block. I just gave them a 3RR warning. ] ] ] ] &spades; 03:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
*:To clarify, the first time I see you inform him of 3RR is on your own talkpage at 03:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC), but that comes after his last revert. ] ] ] ] &spades; 03:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Topic ban of IranitGreenberg) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Pluto2012}}

<!-- 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. -->
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 -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->

<!-- 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 -->

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

<s>Pluto2012 is an hypocrite.</s> He against 1RR violation but he broke the rule first.--] (]) 04:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:I am an hypocrite ? Once more you are insulting me against ]. And it is not the first time that I complain to you about this.
:Both these reverts refer to different material. This is not 1RR. You should stop inserting such pov-pushings. You should also have understood that these in any case would not stay long in article and you make everybody lose time and nothing else.
:] (]) 06:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
::Different material? It's irrelevant. You can't revert twice in the same article in less than 24 hours. You should know that.--] (]) 12:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
===Comment by Nishidani===
Perhaps Pluto has misread the rule this time. I don't know. I've never understood its niceties myself. But, if so (?), in mitigation I'd just note that this last comment by IRanit Greenberg shows one of the defects of our system. One cannot make more than 1R or 3R reverts, depending on the article, but, an advocacy-driven POV-pusher like IranitG, as experienced editors have often noted, can enter twice or three times over 24 hours, in the same article, dubiuous material or sources over that same period which fail scrutiny, and place serious editors in a dilemma. And he not only consistently abuses editors who have a strong reputation as scrupulous in their article contributions, but tries to get them roasted on the only rule he apparently cares for, if others break it.

This is the second time IG has called Pluto a hypocrite , in response to his request you do not use talk pages to discuss politics. He has not retaliated by reporting this strong violation of ] to the appropriate ] page. As other editors have noted, (, and , for example) Iranit Greenberg engages in ], consistently ignores all rules, and obligations to edit neutrally, as the two passages Pluto revert show.

Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. In the first edit Pluto said the material IG introduced had nothing to do with the article. That the UN national assembly voted for Resolution 3279 when ], who, 11 years later was revealed to have formerly been a Nazi, presided, is both irrelevant and not germane to the page, unless a RS source makes that connection. Sources introducing matter like this must relate it to the topic of the page. Neither source is related to the issue. (a) The ] nowhere mentions that resolution. (b) The ] mentions an insane telegram sent to Waldheim by ] in 1972, before the passage of that resolution, and nowhere mentions Resolution 3279. Thus Pluto's revert cancels an egregious ] piece of POV-pushing.

The second revert removed
<blockquote> Beginning in the late 1960s, the Arab states together with the Soviet Union initiated a campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel in every UN and international forum, and supported by what became known as an "automatic majority" of Third World member states.</blockquote>
The introduction of this language violates several principles. (a) The edit copied and pasted the material, without editorial indications that this was a quote, directly from the source.(b) ] is an agenda-driven NGO, and dubious as an RS for this kind of statement (]) (c) the view cited is that of the UN Watch source, but is pasted into the page in a neutral voice (]). Every editor knows that, and Iranit has been told this often, you cannot edit in a subjective POV as though it were a fact, or try to pass off a controversial generalization as in fact a neutral state of affairs. (d) The source nowhere mentions the topic of the article so the selective use of an irrelevant snippet constitutes ] and violates ].

Iranit was warned on several occasions (], ], ] laid the policies out for him some weeks ago) not to make the kind of edits he made today. He won’t learn from advice, but plugs away, and if vigorously challenged, resorts, as here, to an attempt to use the rules to get a good editor sanctioned. How serious and experienced editors are to handle high active POV pushers as they range over pages, creating on each page a controversy by a patently bad series of edits, is not something we have efficient mechanisms for coping with. Those edits were indisputably in violation of many basic[REDACTED] principles. No rule stops him from such rule-insouciant POV pushing. ] (]) 12:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' No violation, the reporting user should read ] and ]. <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> 12:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
::I'm not so sure. I have an extremely high regard for Pluto's contributions, and have the impression that, from time to time, editors do try to get at him, and the animus or ideological posturing of poor editors can make him impatient. But, one should never allow personal sympathies to distort one's analysis. The rule is:' A revert means '''undoing the actions of another editor'''. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three '''reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period'''.' The question is, is that page covered by ARBPIA and does the rule allow one to revert patently poor, indeed abusive editing that violates core policies, even if it is not technically vandalistic'.] (]) 12:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

:] is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie. For example, warning another editor against 1RR violation, but breaking the rule at the same time '''in the same article'''. I'll abstain myself from using this word in the future, though.--] (]) 12:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:::There is absolutely no deception here or hypocrisy. The irony is, Pluto is, as anyone reading my earlier archives can see, on the other side of the border to an editor like myself. Privately we disagree on how the I/P conflict is to be interpreted. But, whether Zionist or not, I've never seen him allow his personal views to get in the way of a commitment to meticulous and neutral sourcing. If he erred from impatience, or misreading, he will have to submit to the sanction. But your editing here is execrable, whatever the outcome, and one unfortunate consequence is that we will probably lose for a time an excellent '''encyclopedic''' contributor. Perhaps that is one of the functions of those who keep putting in absurdly poor material: to test people's patience and make them overstep the mark. POV pushers, on the other hand, are a dime-a-dozen, and like clones, or some hydra-headed figure, keep repeating the same bad patterns of indifferent editing and uncomprehending use of poor sources to defend a cause. Perhaps even they are not hypocritical. They are convinced they have the truth, and must bear witness to it before a 'hostile' world.] (]) 13:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
===Comment by Zero0000===

IranitGreenberg is one of the worst editors in the Middle East department. S/he hardly ever does anything except push a particular POV into articles, without the least regard to NPOV, RS, and common sense. This article is quite typical. Look at " Waldheim was a former Nazi and suspected war criminal" in Misplaced Pages's voice, supported by two references neither of which even mention the topic of this article. Then an opinion of a right-wing advocacy group in Misplaced Pages's voice. Her/his political motivation for being here is clearly indicated by support from another editor assumed to have similar views.

Technically Pluto violated 1RR, apparently though misunderstanding the rule. If there is a sanction (which I urge against in favor of a warning) it should be lenient. IranitGreenberg, on the other hand, should be topic-banned. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

===Comment by Sean.hoyland===
This may be better handled at AE. While Pluto appears to have violated 1RR, none of this would have happened without IranitGreenberg violating two core policies, ] at and ] at as others have noted. It was of course reverted, but they restored it at only to self-revert when they realized it was a 1RR violation. Their POV pushing is blatant and becoming increasingly disruptive. Their behavior at ] is just one of many places where they are lighting fires. Their editing is consistent with what I would expect to see from a radicalized nationalist teenager, so if they aren't one of those they are certainly sending the wrong message, at least to me. They are a catalyst for disruption and edit warring in ARBPIA, the kind that has happened countless times before when nationalist editors bring the Arab-Israeli conflict to Misplaced Pages. At some point someone will need to waste their time compiling evidence for an AE report but in the meantime, please do not allow this editor to continue starting fires across multiple articles and filing reports against people who try to put them out. They violated 1RR yesterday themselves so their personal attacks against Pluto are particularly weak and unethical (see ]). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 13:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

===Comment by Pluto2012===
I violated it. I was really not aware. It would have been the same if I had done both modifications at once and it would only be 1 revert. I self-revert then. Sorry for misunderstanding this rule. ] (]) 15:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

===Comment by EdJohnston===
Given Pluto2012's apology I don't see a need for action against him. But the recent editing of ] is very troubling. They've been blocked twice in the month of May for editing on I/P articles, and they've received the ] warning. They seem to be engaged in simple-minded nationalist POV-pushing, as when they added mention of Kurt Waldheim in a context that did not call for it. A three-month topic ban of IranitGreenberg from the I/P area ought to be considered. ] (]) 18:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:It seems that both Pluto2012 and IranitGreenberg have done at least one self-revert to cure their respective 1RR violations. I would still consider a 3-month topic ban of IG to be an appropriate response to their recent POV editing. This might be avoided by a convincing offer to edit more neutrally in the future. ] (]) 21:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

===Comment by Bbb23===
I am in agreement with Ed, both on the issue of Pluto and of IranitGreenberg, although I probably would favor a 6-month topic ban. As an aside, I'm mildly curious why the most recent block was not logged at ]. It was for a violation of 1RR on an I/P article, but the block notice did not indicate it was an ArbCom block. King of Hearts is a meticulous admin, so perhaps they had a reason.--] (]) 00:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
:Sorry, it should have been logged there. I am not very active in ArbCom enforcement, so I did not know about that requirement. Fixed. -- ] ] ] ] &spades; 00:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

===Comment by IranitGreenberg===
Considering there are so many users involved in POV-pushing when it comes to Arab-Israeli conflict, I think it would be unfair to block me. However, I won't re-add controversial material in the article and I will try to make more neutral contributions. Sorry if I bothered anyone.--] (]) 06:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
:IranitGreenberg, you miss the point.
:The problems with you is that 1. you are convinced that ''"there are so many users involved in POV-pushing when it comes to Arab-Israeli conflict"'' and that 2. you don't know the topics in which you want to collaborate.
:The first problem prevents you to comply with the ] of wikipedia. It's up to you to change your mind about this. The second problems prevents you to comply with the ] of[REDACTED] and is a big issue. When it concerns 2013 attack here or there, it doesn't matter much because googling can solve the issue but when it refers to topics linked to the "1948 war", to "Zionism" or to a "1977 UNGA resolution" there is not a single chance that you can bring anything interesting before you can forget all that you believe or was thought on this and that you study deeply what scholars wrote on these topics.
:Do you undestand this and do you agree with this ? ] (]) 08:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
::Yes, I do. But the sources I provided in the ] article are reliable. And ''']''' (or ], ], ], ] and ] to name a few), is clearly POV-pushing (much more than mine).--] (]) 09:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

===Comment by Dlv999===
I would take the statements by IR that he intends to "try to make more neutral contributions" with a huge dose of salt given that even while this discussion is ongoing he is the same POV material into the same article . ] (]) 09:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
:It's exactly what the source says. It's not POV material and I wasn't blocked for that. Not more POV than '''''', or , for example. There is a clear double standard here.--] (]) 09:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
::The problem is that it is not "exactly what the source says". The is ''" Palestine 1020BC; Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land by George Adam Smith in 1915''". Looking at , you can see the title is "Palestine in the time of Saul 1020BC". Kingdoms depicted on the map include Moab, Edom, Aram, Phonecia, Amon, Philistia, Israel. You stating in the caption "Depiction of the Israelite kingdom (colored)", may be true, but it is not a neutral title for the the map as it depicts far more besides the kingdom of Israel. It is consistent with your general edit pattern on the page to push the Israeli nationalist viewpoint, which isn't appropriate for a page about the Palestinian people.
::I think you will find that the edits you cite of mine are consist with the cited sources. For instant I restored the map title "Syria and Palestine" because that is the title used in the file description. "Syria and the Holy land" is unsupported and seems to be part of a general trend on the page by several editors to remove any reference to Palestine. If you can't tolerate the use of the word "Palestine" where supported by cited sources, you probably should not be editing on the ] article. ] (]) 10:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
:::I don't try to "push the Israeli nationalist viewpoint" (like you try to push the anti-Israel point of view all the time). If you read the 's caption/reference at the right bottom, it says "Kingdom of Israel coloured", it doesn't mention ''Moab, Edom, Aram, Phonecia, Amon, Philistia''...--] (]) 10:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
::::Moab, Edom, Aram, Phonecia, Amon, Philistia are identified by being labelled on the Map, KoI is identified via a key in the bottom right hand of the picture. You are picking one detail from the map (not from its title) and highlighting it. Your consistent approach on the page of highlighting Israel and downplaying and removing references to Palestine is not appropriate for an article about the Palestinian people. Your assertions that everyone else here is at fault and you are not, does not offer much hope that you are willing to acknowledge the issues that have been raised here and amend your editing pattern accordingly. ] (]) 10:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::It's not my fault the picture highlights the Kingdom of Israel (the only reference at the right bottom, look again). And I never said I'm totally right and "everyone else here is at fault"... but you are fault for systematic bias, POV pushing and you don't have the honesty to recognize it.--] (]) 10:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::You choose to highlight one detail from the map instead of using the actual title of the map per the source. In all honesty your opinion of my editing carries very little weight given there is a consensus among experienced editors and admins in agreement that your involvement with the project thus far has been problematic. ] (]) 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Problematic for who? Pro-Palestinian editors like you?--] (]) 11:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' ] is indefinitely banned from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on all pages of Misplaced Pages, with the option to appeal the ban at ] in six months. This action is under the authority of the ] provided by ]. See the appeal section of ] for your other options. ] (]) 12:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Suburban Express}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|TheOriginalSoni}}

<!-- 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:

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

This page has systematically been stripped of historical information appropriate to Misplaced Pages by a number of users acting in concert. They have replaced wiki-appropriate content with current events, POV, and heresay. ] (]) 23:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}}. To the extent you have a legitimate beef - and I have no idea if you have - this is not the forum for it. ] (]) 00:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

==] reported by ] (Result: IP blocked as sock) ==
*{{userlinks|Bobrayner}}
*{{pagelinks|Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina}}
I am concerned about the events to have taken place on the above named site. This report comes in fresh light of on 4 April 2013 on a similar note.
Fresh information was inserted onto the article here:
* Fresh information inserted.
Then came the following reverts:
*
*
*
*.
Concerning the fourth, there has been no investigation or issue raised into whether I (the account in question) am an alleged sockuppet - therefore the summary is an arbitrary declaration and can only be ruled an act of edit warring, in breach of 3RR - particularly if it is found I am not a sockpuppet of any user. ] (]) 15:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

===Comment by bobrayner===
The "fresh information" was fiction; I removed it. 84.74.30.129 is another sockpuppet of {{user|Evlekis}}; see ]. Just like the last time that Evlekis to revert factual errors into articles and then took me to ANEW for removing them, there has been ], and the sooner Evlekis stops reverting and socking, the sooner our articles will reflect ]. Just like last time, Evlekis is too. Baiting another editor into reverting is hardly new for Evlekis; the difference is that Evlekis is now completely blocked and topic-banned, rather than merely limited to 1RR as before, so now the IP has to be used for all tendentious edits & canvassing, rather than just the second, third, and fourth reverts. Srsly; I haven't broken 3RR, I removed factual errors from an article, and a blocked editor uses a sock to put factual errors back into the article, canvass supporters, & report me to this noticeboard. Some days, editing is quite frustrating... but removing factual errors from articles makes me an easy mark for somebody who has no such qualms and who wants to set traps. ] (]) 15:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
:{{AN3|n}}. Without an exemption, you have in fact breached 3RR.--] (]) 15:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
::That would be exemption 3 of ]: "''The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: ... Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.''" ] (]) 16:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
:::I understand, but you appear to be saying that even if the IP is not a sock, you have not breached 3RR. Part of what you accuse the IP of doing is bring a false report here. That's how I understand your comments here and at the SPI.--] (]) 16:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
*Without comment on the merits, I suggest pausing until the SPI is complete. I have commented there. ] - ] - ] - ] - <small>]</small> 16:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
:*That sounds like a good idea to me. ] (]) 16:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}}. Dennis blocked the IP as a sock based on ].--] (]) 16:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Shashi Kapoor ‎ }} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Neo.}}

<!-- 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. -->
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 -->
<!-- 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: (user talk page); (MCQ discussion)

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

Editor has repeatedly substituted a nonfree image for a free image in a BLP infobox, reverting two other editors (including me), despite a complete lack of support for his position in the MCQ discussion he opened (linked above). His edit summary for his most recent revert (first linked diff) admits an intentional 3RR violation. Editor apparently believes that the existence of an open noticeboard discussion prevents any other editor from removing an obvious NFCC violation and allows him to violate 3RR. Similar edit warring at ] . ] (]) 16:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:Image ] is already tagged as disputed. As the tag explains, exception can be made after consensus. Deadline for discussion is 19 May. No user had commented on talk page of image. Only 1 user had expressed his opinion . Above user superseded all[REDACTED] users, admins, closing admin and took 'decision' long before deadline and discussion that above image is voilation of copyrights. I repeatedly stated it edit summary. Sole intention of above user was to override admins/discussion and flame me. ] (]) 16:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:51, 23 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)
    This is an incorrect characterization of the discussion. The people you were edit warring with said, correctly, that he was accused of having made what looks like the Nazi salute. As you know from the video and the sources provided, this is objectively correct. You just don't like the fact that reliable sources said this about him. Nobody is trying to put "Elon Musk is a Nazi" in the article. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:34, 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)
    "Use wide open eyes and use rational thinking (as defined by me)" seems to implicate Misplaced Pages:No original research, as well. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:40, 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:

    User:68.150.205.46 reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: Reported user had self-reverted before the report was made)

    Page: Droop quota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ reply to Quantling"
    2. 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit reply to Quantling"
    3. 22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ addition"
    4. 22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota */ edit addition"

    Comments:

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

    Closed Limelike Curves, the user appears to have self-reverted less than an hour after their last edit warring continuation, and 14 hours before your report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks, I missed that (I didn't notice the last edit was a self-revert). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    68.150.205.46, thanks for self-reverting. Can you agree not to re-add the same material until a real consensus is found? An RfC could help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic