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 10:39, 18 August 2014 view sourceVanamonde93 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators80,758 edits Adding new report for AmritasyaPutra. (TW)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:51, 23 January 2025 view source Closed Limelike Curves (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,188 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}}
{{no admin backlog}}
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/Header}}]
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 253 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
|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: ) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
;Page: {{pagelinks|Misplaced Pages}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|LawrencePrincipe}}


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


;Diffs of the user's reverts: '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{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.)"
# {{diff2|621214733|14:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)}} "WP:Lede requires that only material in the main body of the article may be put in the Lead section.Please stop edit warring WP:EW & violating WP:3RR. Four editors have asked for your reasons on Talk. You have no support on Talk."
# {{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|619973896}}
# {{diff2|1270039369|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
# {{diff2|619916164}}
# "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 edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|619284042|13:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warn" # {{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>
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
{{diff2|620036033}}


All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
;<u>Comments:</u>


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
In the previous report, I asked for moderation, and the consequence was an imposed self-reversion. After the user suggested he was going to comply and made an edit with the appearance of the self-reversion imposed, the case was closed. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in the previous report, the edit turned out to be a hand-crafted revision which only reverted one part of the violating edit. After the intervention of a bot and myself to complete the reversion, the user reverted against the ruling, with no justification but one of the same arguments he had made then had refuted many times. At this point, I did not reopen the case right away, but rather reverted, which - perhaps unsurprisingly - proved useless. The user re-re-reverted, before I issued a final warning on the article's Talk, since the user had requested so. I'm opening this now that the user re-re-re-reverted invoking no argument which hasn't been refuted already, rather implying that I violated the 3RR and pretending that 4 editors have asked for my "reasons", without even specifying which. ''Moreover, in that last revert, depicted as a simple reversion of my previous edit, he also reverted a recent change without giving any justification.''


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <br />
:Reviewing {{Diff2|621388851|an edit from Folklore1}} made me realize that the above statement is misleading. It remains true that the last revert was more than what the edit summary suggested, but the extra part was not what I initially read (a revert of {{Diff2|621152501|one of my edits}}). Even though it technically does revert that, I failed to notice that it also removed the fragment ' "more than 50 official policies" ' LawrencePrincipe had added. <strike>This fixes an important problem. It constitutes a concession, and certainly was not a reversion of my edit in spirit.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GiggaHigga127}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
:I do not withdraw my complaint and recommendation for sanction, but the statement now italicized was a big mis-characterization, and I apologize for that. I should have praised that change, not blamed it. {{Reply to|LawrencePrincipe}} I apologize to you in particular, although I recommend you avoid mixing such changes in a single edit in the future. If you choose to proceed in such a way anyway, make sure your edit summary reflects that.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:Note to self: ''Keep'' assuming ''some'' good faith...</strike> --] (]) 05:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC), corrected 16:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
# – same
# – same
# – same
# – same, now with PA


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::I'm sorry, I must re-amend the above after giving a new look to the diff with a much-needed cooler head. I surely understand the analysis error I made now, but I probably understand LawrencePrincipe's error too. I now believe LawrencePrincipe's change to '''content of''' the lead's last paragraph was unintentional, which would mean that my original interpretation of the edit was basically correct; LawrencePrincipe intended to discreetly revert my change, but unintentionally removed his own addition while removing my request for clarification, which explains why the sentence was left broken.
:: If that was not case, then I maintain my apologies. --] (]) 02:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
While a week has gone between his last reverts, it should be noted that ] was locked for 1 week during that period, for reasons not unrelated to this user's behavior. (''By the way, this case may be a good opportunity to review the page's protection status. It appears that setting full protection has ironically now brought the article back to No protection rather than the previous semi-protection which it seemed to have, which is bringing more problematic edits than anything else. I would recommend semi-protection or Pending changes.'')


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
In the original report, I wrote I was "sure he become/remain a useful contributor". I am sorry, but I hereby fully retract this statement. Although I will never deny that LawrencePrincipe has already contributed useful work and can continue to do so, his signal/noise ratio has exploded, now that he's opened an RFC and directly tried to get so many people involved. More importantly, his conduct is very mischievous. He repeatedly feigns ignorance and tries to change the subject. I consider several of his comments (such as the edit summary discussed above) as personal attacks. I can only hope that this will change, but have no evidence to that effect. I recommend a meaningful block.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
I would probably take an extra day of redaction and an extra hour from your time if I tried to point each error and deceitful behavior I have seen from LawrencePrincipe. Instead of that, I am offering a single example. Unfortunately, although extreme, , is far from unrepresentative of the behavior LawrencePrincipe currently displays.
User:GiggaHigga127 insists on adding the ] and ] divisions to Conor Benn's infobox. Our style guide at WikiProject Boxing, ], says to only include weight classes in which a boxer has ''notably'' competed, that being usually for regional/minor/world titles. In Benn's case, that division was ] for almost the entirety of his career, and he did indeed hold a regional title in that division. In 2023 he was given a lengthy ban from the sport, from which he recently returned in a pair of throwaway fights within the light middleweight limit, against non-notable opposition and with no titles at stake. Per the style guide, those throwaway fights are not important enough to warrant the inclusion of light middleweight in the infobox, at least until he begins competing there regularly.


As far as middleweight goes, Benn has ''never competed anywhere close to that weight class''. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, ] and ] should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had ] regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. ] would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. ] (]) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Less than 2 weeks have passed since this case was opened; LawrencePrincipe is surely and understandably not much more skilled with this Misplaced Pages's language and its conventions. However, these can't explain all the apparent confusion he has shown, and one can hardly use carelessness and inexperience as defense after having opened an RFPP and resorted to important canvassing. A large part of what looks like confusion/inexperience is intentional deception. I have never dealt with a contributor conducting himself so poorly/inconsistently, and I have probably been here for too long already. I honestly wonder who LawrencePrincipe is, and am still unsure at times about an apparent confusion's genuineness, but it is high time to put an end to this.
: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 realize the above contains lots of accusations and judgments which are not fully substantiated. This is not really intentional. If your review of the situation does not make the reasons behind a certain claim obvious, I am sorry and will be happy to elaborate. --] (]) 05:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tübingen School}}
*I already reported both users to ANI for this issue a few hours ago. Link: ]. Both users are edit warring. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 05:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xpander1}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Nofel Izz}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Johnmoor}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{diff2|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:
#
#.


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# {{diff2|1270588908|07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply"
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{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"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


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


: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)
Starting here at AN3, realizing that this will probably go to ANI.
::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)
This is an escalation of Johnmoor edit-warring over maintenance templates in the article
:{{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)
, though Johnmoor's edit-warring problems with this article go back to .
::'''Addendum''': I also commend ] to {{u|Xpander1}}'s attention. ] (]) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 hours) ==
Basically, he's ignoring the content policy concerns, and was edit-warring over the tags until I simply started removing the poorly-sourced and unsourced material from the article. Now he's edit-warring to restore the material back into the article.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Oriel High School}}
'''Background:'''


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|92.238.20.255}}
Johnmoor, while not admitted to any conflict of interest, appears to be a paid editor. He appeared to have retired from editing when confronted with evidence of a ]. Basically, he had in the past linked his user page to to webpages that clearly showed he was a paid editor. While someone has erased most of the evidence outside Misplaced Pages, we still have the images he obtained from the people he wrote articles for.


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
More importantly, he doesn't appear to understand our policies and guidelines related to types of references and their usage. He uses and argues for the use of self-published material, press releases, interviews, announcements in articles as if our policies on using such sources didn't exist. For a detailed example, see Talk:Grammarly beginning at ]. His most recent attempt at creating an article shows the same problems but in a BLP: ].


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
His most recent edits relate to ], which included related or competing material in ], ], ], and ]. From what I understand of ], Johnmoor is just one of multiple editors involved in writing about and promoting Izz.
# {{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"


Related discussions: ], ], ] --] (]) 21:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;Defence
Since my first encounter with ] on ]—], he has basically ignored ], accusing me of being a paid editor—] and has been ] about all of my contributions since then. This incidence began soon after I found that some new contributions to the ]—an article which I had previously contributed—were lacking citations and I decided to improve on it by adding citations, and in finding those citations I came across his new design of a space elevator which I found relevant for mention in the ] article; this led me to make other related contributions, some of which were challenged. As usual, {{user|Ronz}} was on my trail, but his contributions were challenged by other contributors, and characteristically—], he those who challenged him. ] tried working—] with him to address his concerns, but when repeatedly asked to state specific sentences or list out sources that are of concern, he simply avoid to answer—]; seeing that there was no longer a need for the tags on the article, I removed them, but he undid me replacing them with a different tag, which is just ], I warned him—, but he ignored, and this resulted in the subsequent undoing of each other's contributions. —] (]) 07:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:So how do these misleading, when not outright false, allegations justify your edit-warring to restore poorly sourced and unsourced information where BLP applies? --] (]) 15:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments''': This IP is trying to censor information in that article --] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</u>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Wale (rapper)}} <br />
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ] (]) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kwikk35}} {{userlinks|Truurbansoulja}}
*:I undid that block and restored it because simply removing the block isn't really an option in response to actually disruptive editing, but the IP editor's behavior wasn't the main issue in this edit war. I'll send warnings around to people who should know better. ] (]) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


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


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


'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#
#


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# 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


<!-- 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 />
Greetings administrators. An IP user, who created two additional accounts, has made 6 disruptive edits to the ] article in less than 24 hours. The user's revision has been reverted by three different users, excluding myself. The user keeps adding the same stuff over and over. I tried to reason with the user but to no avail. The user (using his/her other account) left on my talk page. The user left the same message on ]' talk page in . The user needs to be blocked because he/she is socking and edit warring. '''] '''</font></big>] 00:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
:*Weldone for bringing this here. I posted my report, then I saw yours. Just to add; this user is also editwarring on ] article. It can be seen , and . I also tried to reason with this user to no avail.--] (]) 00:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b}}. There were so many things wrong with these two accounts it's hard to know where to begin. First, Kwikk35 made a clear legal threat. Second, both are probably sock puppets of each other. Third, the edits of both were ] violations. And, of course, there's also the edit warring. I have a feeling that semi-protection may be needed for both articles, but we'll see.--] (]) 01:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
;Page: {{pagelinks|Sevan Nişanyan}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Nisanyan8}}


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


Hello
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
the user Kelvintjy has been engaged in another war last summer and was banned from the ] page. He's been pursuing an edit war on the ] page too without daring give explanations on the talk page though he was invited to do it many times. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*{{AN3|s}} ] (]) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@] you blocked this user from the page ] in Aug. 2024 for the same reasons. ] (]) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:You also block Raoul but later unblocked him after he made his appeal. ] (]) 00:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ergzay}}
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>
# {{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:'''
COI editor owning the article and adding unreferenced puffery, violating not only 3RR but also WP:OR, WP:NPOV etc. ] (]) 03:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270879182|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small|(edit: corrected diff)}}
*{{AN3|w}}. {{U|Why should I have a User Name?}}, you didn't file this report properly; diffs are required. And they would show that the user hasn't come close to breaching ]. In any event, edit warring isn't really the issue. His self-promotion (assuming he's the subject) is, and I've left a warning on his talk page about that. If he persists, I will consider blocking him.--] (]) 04:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: No action ) ==
# {{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|Talk:Joni Ernst‎}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|CFredkin}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
# *added by DD2K
# *added by DD2K


Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (User is ware of the 3RR rule) And


] 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)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
CFredkin believes that the RfC I posted in talk page is not neutral, and keeps removing the RFC tag instead of commenting in the appropriate section. I have asked him to stop, but he does not. I have posted a notice of the RFC at BLP/N, as well as informed other participants about it. - ] ] 05:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
CFredkin has made 2 other reverts on the page, without explaining the problems he seems to be having with the RFC. Which looks to me as if it conforms to the guidelines. The editor has already been warned and blocked for edit warring many times, and does not follow blocks or warnings. In fact, he completely ignores them and just edits under sock accounts while blocked. ] (]) 05:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
::@] So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. ] (]) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::]: {{tq|An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. ] (]) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. ] (]) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::]: {{tq|There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons}}. – ] (]) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. ] (]) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. ] (]) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
:The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. ] (]) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. ] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording followed by after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. ] (]) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::What is a CTOP? ] (]) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::A CTOP is a ]. ] (]) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages.}} If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. ] (]) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. ] (]) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::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) ==
The explanation here appears to be "I edit-warred to remove an RfC I didn't like so that I could start a second RfC on my preferred terms." Quite. ] (]) 08:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul Cézanne}}
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Here are the corresponding reversions by ]:
#
#
#
#


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}}
The RfC as written violates the guidelines for ]'s by being blatantly non-neutral. It also completely mis-represents the dispute regarding one of the edits cited. I've offered to help with editing the RfC to address these issues. However Cwobeel has chosen to edit war instead.] (]) 05:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Dave Dial's comment above is categorically false. We're talking about a Talk page here. Every one of the diffs above states my issues with the RfC construction. I also note that none of the other editors who've commented here have bothered to respond to my concerns in Talk. Their response has been to revert my edits where I'm stating the issue!


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
The 2 edits Cwobeel included in the original RfC should probably not have been included in the same RfC. The issues being raised for the edits are fundamentally different (as I stated in Talk). I finally created a separate RfC to deal with the edit I'm disputing. I don't want to create a second RfC for the remaining edit in dispute, because I'm not disputing it. And I still object to the original RfC, unless the edit I'm disputing (which I've now created a separate RfC for) is removed.] (]) 08:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff|oldid=1271008210|diff=1271008905|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1271008695|06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|1271008905|06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1271007344|06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1271006989|06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
#


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*CFredkin made six reverts, which is obviously more egregious than Cwobeel's four, but both of them broke ]. Rather than flinging symmetrical blocks around, I'm letting both of them off with a warning. Any more edit warring on this page from either of them and I'll block. ] &#124; ] 08:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC).
# {{diff2|1271008376|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
# {{diff2|1271010383|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
I just don't know what to do with this guy. I have had to disengage from multiple articles because his behavior, but in this case I will not give up. All I wanted was to attract additional eyeball to the dispute, per WP:DR. I will restart the RFC from scratch, and if he reverts gain I will report here. - ] ] 14:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Page: {{pagelinks|Joni Ernst}}
*This is straight-up vandalism. {{U|BusterD}} semi-protected the article for one week, and I've blocked ] for two weeks.--] (]) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
;User being reported: {{userlinks|CFredkin}}


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Droop quota}}
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|621456354|07:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Agenda 21 */ Once again, Talk discussion is against including this content"
# {{diff2|621453720|06:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Agenda 21 */ Once again, article Talk does not support this content currently"
# {{diff2|621453191|06:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 621452830 by ] (]) You've deleted reliably sourced content and the source with this edit"
# {{diff2|621450090|05:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Agenda 21 */ Article Talk consensus currently does not support this content"
# {{diff2|621413152|22:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Agenda 21 */ Edit based on Talk discussion"
# {{diff2|621409853|21:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Agenda 21 */ Update based on article Talk discussion"


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|68.150.205.46}}
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff|oldid=1271015536|diff=1271021273|label=Consecutive edits made from 08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|621448075|05:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* RfC: Can material that is critical to the subject be included in the article? */"
## {{diff2|1271020237|08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|621448442|05:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* RfC: Can material that is critical to the subject be included in the article? */ NPOV and FRINGE demand that we call out fringe theories as what they are."
## {{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:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>


6RR on effectively the same material. Noted in edit summaries that user was approaching 3RR. Already reported by another user for a similar issue on the talk page. Made tendentious accusation that a source was removed when the diff clearly shows that ]. ] (]) 07:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*'''Comment''' Isn't the previous discussion about this same user on exactly the same page? Anyhow, the fact that he has ''three'' (see further up) reports on ANEW over the past few days is hardly complimentary to him. I have tangled with this user several times before, and in my experience he is far too prone to edit-warring, as well as to citing the BLP exception to ]. ] (]) 08:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
# {{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>


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)
;Diffs of ]'s reverts of same content:


:{{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)
A lengthy discussion of the content in question can be found starting . The dispute followed the addition of content by one of the editors involved in the edit war. Essentially no consensus exists for addition of content in dispute. My understanding of ] is that once the content in question was reverted initially, further attempts to restore the content should be based on a Talk consensus supporting the addition. This is particularly true with ]'s.
::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)
And speaking of tendentious editing....
In this series of edits, I address 3 discrete content issues separately:

And here, NorthBySouth reverts the edits en masse, while addressing 1 of the issues:

I then initiated Talk discussion, which NorthBySouth declined to join. He instead continued the edit war.] (]) 08:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

With regards to Vanamonde's comments above, I'll point out that the complaint filed immediately before this one is essentially the same dispute. Many of the diffs in this one are duplicates of the one's above.(I retract the previous sentence.)

Also, I'll point out that Vanamonde's comments are not accompanied by any diffs.] (]) 08:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:The first edit in your list is not a revert. I did not undo any editor's action - as a previously-uninvolved editor, I installed newly-rewritten content based on an interpretation of the source. You simply blindly reverted me just as you had reverted other editors.
:Breaking up a revert into multiple edits does not make it less of a revert. Your "3 discrete content issues" combined to '''entirely revert my edits''', which makes it a revert.
:Absolutely none of the diffs in this report are duplicated. You edit-warred with Cwobeel on the article Talk page and you have edit-warred with Cwobeel and myself on the article page. Two separate violations. ] (]) 08:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
*No, NBSB, maybe you didn't realize, but your first edit listed above reverted , installing the same text, just lightly rearranged. So that's four reverts. I don't like to place symmetrical blocks here either, see previous section. Instead I've protected the page for a week so that hopefully things can be worked out on talk. ] &#124; ] 09:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC).
:: {{Yo|Bishonen}} Thank you for the intervention,. What do you suggest about how to reduce the persistent disputes with CFredkin? I have tried everything, including RFCs, but as you can see from the previous report, even that is a source of disruptive editing. I am at a loss, and would appreciate any actionable suggestions. - ] ] 22:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:::], I went to the page and looked, but had to conclude I just don't have the time to get sufficiently familiar with the subject. It's new to me. Sorry I can't be of any help. It does look like it has gone beyond RfC's, so I suggest you try ]. ] &#124; ] 23:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Shooting of Michael Brown}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Whatzinaname}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|621490395|14:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "no demonstrable relevance to the shooting,"
# {{diff2|621493247|14:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "That's what's called OR and doesn't belong on wikipedia."
# {{diff2|621514800|18:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "" (This one is a partial revert)
# {{diff2|621516151|18:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "POV pushing garbage. I gave the full, accurate account as best we know it. Your account is purposely misleading and unacceptable"
# {{diff2|621533733|20:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Nice try."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|621516403|18:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
#
#

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

#
;<u>Comments:</u>

Plenty of discussion ongoing at talk. Last revert after an RFC was opened regarding the content removed.] (]) 21:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone ought to protect the article -- which is the logical course of action -- the "although" argumentation format does ''not'' belong in any article which ''must'' be compliant with ] and it is likely that the "KKK allegation" is quite contentious in nature, requiring substantially stronger sourcing that the SPLC blogs. I find it reprehensible to try using incidents of this nature to score "political points" of any sort at all, especially where the allegations are based on relatively weak sourcing. Cheers. ] (]) 21:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

# There is no major general edit warring there to warrant protection.
# The KKK content has 2 sources, only 1 being the SPLC. More sources can be find at talk + it can be verified on the KKK's own website. It might be undue and that will be determined at the running RFC (and rather quickly I guess).<br>::Cheers, ] (]) 21:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|Collect}} Thank you for your usual illuminating perspective, but the article is fine; it doesn't need protection. Almost all of the 150+ editors have edited remarkably reasonable, and then there's Whatzinaname. Note this tirade: ]. Apparently Whatzinaname had similar experience editing ]. - ]] 21:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. Even without the reverts of the KKK material, the user breached ].--] (]) 21:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Amy Winehouse discography}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Callum0000}}

;Previous version reverted to: {{diff2|618209170|02:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)}}

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|621535338|21:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|620819037|20:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|618652694|09:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|618612983|01:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|618608825|00:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|618607957|00:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|618583766|20:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)}}

;Comments:
User has been blocked three times after I reported him to ]. However, the fourth time I reported him, I was told I should consider taking this report to WP:AN/I instead. <b><font color="#F7A7C8">]</font> • <font color="#5D5D5D">]</font></b> 21:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b}}. Actually, the ''right'' place would have been ]. I indeffed Callum0000 as the suspected master and ] and ] as suspected puppets.--] (]) 22:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Iglesia ni Cristo}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Fcbelmontejr}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|621449589|05:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/*This is a presentation of INC stand regarding monetary offering as a part of worship service.*/"
# {{diff2|621447169|04:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 621446539 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|621446248|04:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|621445113|04:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Worship and prayer */"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|621450248|05:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|621453072|06:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


;<u>Comments:</u>

User is uncommunicative, does not use edit summaries or talk pages. Please note: user has switched to IPs to avoid warning/scrutiny. User also known as 217.115.65.17 and 217.115.65.15 ] (]) 00:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b}}. See ].--] (]) 01:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Indigo children}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mike_maroon}}

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

Previous version reverted to: {{diff|title=Indigo_children|oldid=620443392}}

<!-- 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|title=Indigo_children|diff=prev|oldid=621570947}}
# {{diff|title=Indigo_children|diff=prev|oldid=621571145}}
# {{diff|title=Indigo_children|diff=prev|oldid=621571433}}
# {{diff|title=Indigo_children|diff=prev|oldid=621571824}}

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: {{diff|title=User_talk:Mike_maroon|diff=prev|oldid=621571753}}

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: {{diff|Talk:Indigo_children|diff=prev|oldid=621572030}}

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User needs to learn to pay attention to messages from other users, will probably ask why he was blocked. ] (]) 03:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}.--] (]) 05:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Blink element}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Chbarts}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|621574096|03:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)}} "rm potential seizure trigger"
# {{diff2|621567510|02:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Chbarts. (])"
# {{diff2|621567155|01:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 621560219 by ] (]) remove potential source of seizures"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|621568193|02:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* August 2014 */ re"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


;<u>Comments:</u>

This user has been to 3RR before. He's been blocked for edit warring in the past, so he's been through this before. He's under the impression that there's a trigger on the page from blinking text that will send someone into a seizure. I'm not a medical expert, but I disagree - and with that even put aside, it was briefly discussed and disagreed with on the talk page over a year ago. He's now back and removing the text again - despite warnings and being shown the consensus that was reached. Instead, he's ignoring the warnings and coming to his own conclusions. He was also warned over ] but doesn't want to seem to drop ]. I'm out of ideas and options but to bring him here. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 04:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
:Can we at least ''attempt'' to resolve this on the talk page before bringing it here? Also, the fact you're not a medical expert but still feel qualified to have an opinion on this is a big part of the problem.—] (]) 04:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb}} for '''24 hours''' and '''48 hours''' based on previous edit warring history. Fairly clear-cut case of ] violations. {{u|Dusti}} reverted citing a nearly year old consensus on the talk page. When {{u|Chbarts}} repeatedly tried to reignite the discussion Dusti ignored. ] did not meet ] in either case.

:As for my opinion regarding the dispute – which played no role in my administrative decision – is that we should probably not worry about the blink example even working for most visitors. It's pretty old and ... so probably redundant to retain in whole or part. That be so, unless there's some guideline on in-article CSS usage I'm not aware of, it should conform to consensus, which apparently needs to be reexamined.

:Advice for both parties: When in doubt, do not revert. Edit wars only fuel the tension and clutter the page history. Use the talk page, and don't ignore other users attempts to discuss valid concerns. If consensus is/was met, and the concerned edits are not obvious vandalism or other urgent matters, wait for preventive measures to be put in place. If on the other hand consensus cannot be met, seek ]. &mdash; '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 00:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Didier Drogba}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Chelsea-fan1}}

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

Previous version reverted to: {{Diff|Didier Drogba||621540166|00:43, 17 August 2014}}

<!-- 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|Didier Drogba|621619984|621540166|15:51, 17 August 2014}}
# {{Diff|Didier Drogba|621624362|621622405|16:31, 17 August 2014}}
# {{Diff|Didier Drogba|621668856|621646722|22:33, 17 August 2014}}
# {{Diff|Didier Drogba|621670631|621670486|22:47, 17 August 2014}}

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: {{Diff|User talk:Chelsea-fan1||621646811|19:49, 17 August 2014}}

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: {{Diff|User talk:Chelsea-fan1||621646811|19:49, 17 August 2014}}

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
The article's been going through a ] since 2 August (]) and all this user's done is revert edits made as a result of this peer review (especially removing references in the Honours section). Tried to engage a conversation with him on his talk page and warned him about violating ], told me not to "tell him what to do". {{u|Jaellee}} tried to solve it with a previous revert before that {{Diff|Didier Drogba||621622405|here}}, citing unexplained removal of references, but the user reverted that as well. (S)he's been blocked for edit warring before, and it needs to happen again. ] → <small>] • ] • ]</small> 19:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The user ] has made a total mess out of the honours section. He also made references in its Honours section, even tough they wouldn't be necessary since they'd already have been mentioned in the body or the respective articles. I changed the honours section because it looked all over the place. Now everybody can comfortable read the honours list. ] (]) 21:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Chelsea-fan1}} First of all, the honours have to be referenced. That's common sense. I can agree about it being a bit of a mess but instead of flat out removing the references add some prose to the section or something where you can put them. Second, you're flat out removing the Records section I added (with references), for NO reason WHATSOEVER, then you're leaving the Honours section with one empty "Individual" section, and you're telling me all of this is constructive? How any of this is constructive editing to you, I can't seem to get at all. ] → <small>] • ] • ]</small> 20:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
::Just for information: Honours without inline references will be removed, see ], so they are necessary. This is currently discussed again at ], but for the moment, if you want to keep the honours' section, it has to be referenced, even if it already mentioned in the body.--] (]) 20:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Jaellee}} THANK YOU. For God's sake man. ] → <small>] • ] • ]</small> 20:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}}.--] (]) 05:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Jason Donovan}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|TheRedPenOfDoom}}

<!-- 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: and in edit summaries.


<u>Comments:</u>User has been repeatedly removing sourced details from this article. Even after further sources were added, s/he still reverted it claiming all details were a BLP violation when they weren't. User has also made baseless accusations on my talk page and in their edit summaries on the article page of me being another user who was blocked, linking to another IP address which is not even the same ISP as mine and in a completely different location. In addition to edit warring, a clear breach of ] as seen in their insulting and offensive messages on my talk page, as well as persistent lack of ]. Also possible ] judging by how long this has been going on on this particular article, and possible ] as another account conveniently took over for them on the article minutes later. Judging by the multitude of historical reports made by other users on the admin and 3RR noticeboards, there is clearly a tendency for this user to be troublesome. ] (]) 02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

:I am the account referred to as the possible sock. TheRedPenOfDoom and I have both been active in for years so we have crossed paths a few times, but in general we have little overlap. Suggesting we are socks simply because I happened to agree with TheRedPenOfDoom's undo of the IP's edit is a reach. I undid the IP's edit once with a clear edit summary saying that the parts I checked had not been adequately supported by the refs, and I was undoing on BLP grounds. I issued the 3RR warning to the IP because it was the 4th time today that the IP had made that exact same undo and that it had been restored on BLP grounds.
:#
:#
:#
:#
:I think there's a good case for a ] here. I didn't issue a 3RR warning to TheRedPenOfDoom since I agreed that the material was a BLP violation. ] (]) 02:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
::The fact remains that you still removed ''sourced'' details from the article that were clearly not a BLP violation, and trying to characterise it as such is wrong. These are the very same sourced details that TheRedPenOfDoom was repeatedly removing and the fact you did it only minutes after he had already breached 3RR smacks of ]. ] (]) 03:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I've already stated that I have nothing to do with the other editor. It was my independent decision, not tag teaming. I saw an edit that was undone on BLP grounds but was restored by you claiming "blatant vandalism". As I said, I didn't check the entire edit. The parts I checked seemed to me to justify the description of it as having BLP issues, and did not justify your calling TheRedPenOfDoom's undo as vandalism. Some of your edit may well be acceptable, but the undo certainly wasn't blatant vandalism. This isn't the place for anything but a discussion of the edit war. You called for one, and I pointed out the evidence for a ]. The edit contents should be discussed on the article's talk page, vandalism at ],socking accusations at ], and tag teaming at ] (I suppose). ] (]) 04:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
::::And did you or TheRedPenOfDoom bother to discuss anything on the article talk page? No, you just simply did a blanket revert, removing perfectly sourced details in the process. Saying that you didn't bother checking the entire edit is no defense. In fact, it makes your actions even worse. ] (]) 04:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Going by many of the TRPoD's edits seem valid, since the claims in most cases are either unsourced or go beyond what the source says. For instance, you claim that Donovan and Minogue were "romantically involved" during their collaboration on "Especially for You" but the source simply states they had "briefly dated" and is not specific about the time period. You claim that Donovan "dyed his hair for the role", but that is unsourced; it could have been a wig, or he could have dyed it for another reason. I could go on but you get the idea. I think maybe after the third or fourth revert this could have been taken to the talk page but policy does support TRPod's actions in this instance. Your time would be better served by i) sourcing what clearly isn't sourced ii) starting a discussion to address the remaining issues. ] (]) 04:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Policy does not support removal of perfectly sourced material. If TRPOD had a genuine concern about some of the details being unsourced, then those details and only those details can either be removed or (ideally) have a cite needed tag placed after them. As it stands, TRPOD removed perfectly sourced material and continued to edit war to keep it that way. ] (]) 04:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
*If anybody's a sock here, it's 88.104.24.7 . For editing for only a few hours, he sure learned what WP:OWN was pretty darn quick. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 04:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
::At no point have I ever said I've only edited for a few hours. I've been editing Misplaced Pages for over a year, thank you. I'm not breaking any rules if I choose not to have an account. And if you have any evidence that I am a sock then please share it with us before you start throwing mud. Especially when you have no less than 170 intersecting edits with TheRedPenOfDoom in your edit history. ] (]) 04:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
*Without making any judgement here, this content dispute has been going on for five days with zero discussion on talk. Even when we believe another user is violating policy, this discussion more properly belongs on ]. Everyone should be hashing this out on talk, not going straight to 3RR or BLP/N. Both the reporter and the reportee have an obligation to discuss differences on talk, if only to document the dispute. ] (]) 04:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
:I'd just like to add that in that five days, I have gone to great effort to add additional, perfectly good sources to improve the article only to have them continually removed by TheRedPenOfDoom. The only time s/he has engaged in discussion was to insult me on my talk page. Please note s/he hasn't even bothered to come to this page despite being notified hours ago. ] (]) 04:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} (full) for one week.--] (]) 05:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Alison Lundergan Grimes}} <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. -->

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:

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

'''Diffs of ]'s reverts of same content:'''

# - reverts my entire series of edits.
# - reverts my entire series of edits.
# - reverts in his preferred version of the Affordable Care Act section and his disputed accounting of her Iron Dome statements.
# - reverts in the disputed opinion statements by a Politico writer.
# - reverts my insertion of two sourced position statements.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Mutual combat, if anything. CFredkin is engaged in a wide-ranging campaign to insert partisan slant into a wide variety of political biographies, and this must be challenged to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of NPOV. ] (]) 06:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
The diffs listed by Barnaof aren't all reverts and they aren't all the same content. I've tried to amend my edits to address Baranof's concerns where possible (and where they make sense). However editor appears intent on blocking any edits which might reflect poorly on the subject of the article.] (]) 06:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, they are all reverts, and it doesn't matter whether they're each the exact same content. Four reverts of any content on the same page constitutes a violation. The editor appears intent on deleting criticism from Republican biographies and inserting criticism into Democratic biographies, regardless of due weight and neutrality concerns in either direction. Any criticism of a Democrat must be inserted no matter how trivial, any criticism of a Republican must be removed no matter how well-sourced. Candidates' biographies should not be a ] for opposing forces to try and win an election through Misplaced Pages content. ] (]) 06:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
::Huh? All the diffs are on ].] (]) 06:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
:::It's not really difficult to look at your edit history and draw conclusions. ] (]) 06:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Believe me, the same accusations can be thrown at you. I think the subject of this dispute is edits on ], and I think the edit history on this article speaks for itself.] (]) 06:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Oddly enough, no they can't - I have a wide-ranging edit history with large numbers of edits that have nothing to do with partisan politics. I can't find a single article-space edit in your last 1,000 that doesn't have something to do with attacking a Democrat or defending a Republican. ] (]) 06:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::Despite your attempts to muddy the water here, this complaint is about activity on a specific article.] (]) 07:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
You are comprehensively blocking any negative content from being added to this article.] (]) 06:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
:Well, no, I'm not. There's a significant amount of "negative" content that I have not so much as commented on - for example, the ethics complaint and the "underwhelming" campaign opener opinion by the Washington Post. You, on the other hand, have done '''literally nothing to this biography except add content with a negative slant.''' This presents a significant ] and ] problem - Grimes' biography is not a political battleground to list every single bit of campaign minutia for or against her. That is something ]. ] (]) 07:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
::Conversely, the same can be said of your edits to the article. Your statement completely applies to you in reverse.] (]) 07:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, the little notes ("deletes my entire series of edits") you've added next to your diffs are completely bogus. A close examination of the edit history of this article shows that in almost every instance, I've left your edits or only modified them to conform to the sources. However, you've systematically removed almost all my edits in their entirety.] (]) 07:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
:Well, no. As I noted, you reverted back in the entire Politico section, you reverted back your preferred version of the ACA statement, you reverted the Iron Dome statements back to a version you preferred, you entirely removed the quote relative to her abortion positions, etc. Each of those edits represents you replacing my preferred version with your preferred version - that is a revert. "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." ] (]) 07:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
::What are you talking about? The Politico content was removed by you in its entirety, and it had been there for some time. You changed the Iron Dome and abortion statements that I added so that they don't even accurately reflect the sources.] (]) 07:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The reporting user , while simultaneously complaining on this noticeboard about my reverts. ] would seem to apply here. ] (]) 07:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

*{{AN3|p}} One week. ], ], <small>]</small> 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Alison Lundergan Grimes}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|CFredkin}}

<!-- 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. -->
This user has had umpteen 3RR warnings and ANEW reports before, including several in the last few days; examples 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 />
Over the past few days, this user has been revert warring over a variety of pages; I chose Alison Lundergan for the report, because that was the most blatant 3RR violation. Other pages include ] (, , )

] (, )

All of these are within the last 24 hours, and are not very different of CFredkin's historical behavior. ] (]) 06:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
This editor's complaint is so poorly constructed that I'm not going to bother to respond to the accusations. However, I will point out that it to be a ] dedicated to disputing my edits. And it's not the .] (]) 06:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

*{{AN3|p}} One week. ], ], <small>]</small> 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Alison Grimes}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|CFredkin}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|621739344|07:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Political positions */ These statements don't accurately reflect the sources provided."
# {{diff|oldid=621725505|diff=621728369|label=Consecutive edits made from 04:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC) to 05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|621726850|04:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Political positions */ Edit to conform to sources as described in Talk"
## {{diff2|621727043|05:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Political positions */ Conform to source as described in Talk"
## {{diff2|621728369|05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Political positions */ No coal there"
# {{diff2|621724292|04:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Political positions */ Restore content with attribution of statement."
# {{diff|oldid=621720908|diff=621721459|label=Consecutive edits made from 03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC) to 03:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|621721342|03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 621720506 by ] (]) Restore content per Talk"
## {{diff2|621721381|03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 621720446 by ] (]) Restore content per Talk"
## {{diff2|621721412|03:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 621720372 by ] (]) Restore content per Talk"
## {{diff2|621721459|03:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 621720268 by ] (]) Rm content not supported by source"
# {{diff|oldid=621703385|diff=621717464|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC) to 02:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|621712182|01:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Political positions */ Once again, there's a difference between commentary on an issue, and commentary on a politician's stance on an issue."
## {{diff2|621712327|02:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Political positions */ Rm peacock quote"
## {{diff2|621712662|02:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Political positions */ Conform to source"
## {{diff2|621712758|02:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Political positions */ Conform to source"
## {{diff2|621713474|02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Political positions */ Conform to source"
## {{diff2|621717464|02:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Political positions */ Conform to sources"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|621457117|07:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (])"
# {{diff2|621725266|04:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


;<u>Comments:</u>

This editor continues to revert-war, even after reporting me to the 3RRNB for edit-warring. ] (]) 07:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

*{{AN3|p}} One week. Three sections for one article! ], ], <small>]</small> 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Shooting of Michael Brown}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Bongey}}

<!-- 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: (although Bongey deleted it almost as soon as I placed it on his/her 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 />

Bongey is one of about three users who is currently edit warring to place original research (in which the users attempt to establish in Misplaced Pages's voice which of several witness reports are reliable) on the page above. Other editors have at least engaged in some discussion, but Bongey has not even attempted discussion. He/she is just reinstating his/her preferred edits although at least three different users have undone those edits citing the same concerns. The diffs above are just the full reverts; there are a number of intermediate reverts as well in which Bongey reinstated other material that violates WP policies. Again, at least 4 reverts + no discussion whatsoever.
:Also, I should point out that all of these reverts occurred in about the last three hours. ] (]) 08:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|AmritasyaPutra}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|621752365|09:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* top */ The opening sentence should present it objectively what is said to be their motive, not an opinion piece from a self-published journal in Misplaced Pages voice. It can me mentioned with attribution in the body."
# {{diff2|621752943|10:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 621752693 by ] (]) Take it to ] if you want to claim not RS in the context. I will put back BISS if I can find it in the reference... within ten minutes."
# {{diff2|621754280|10:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "/* top */ Organiser (newspaper) is not by VHP."
# {{diff2|621755805|10:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} "Put back perfectly fine three references. The stated mission of an organization is taken from their mission statement not from some other person's opinion in an article."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|621755795|10:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|621755647|10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}} ""

;<u>Comments:</u>

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