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 02:37, 24 September 2014 view sourceKrzyhorse22 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,844 editsm →User:StanTheMan87 reported by User:Krzyhorse22 (Result: Protected)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:41, 22 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,068 editsm Archiving 7 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive491) (bot 
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 = 257 |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: No blocks) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hit the Deck (1955 film)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Beyond My Ken}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|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|1270041541|16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
# {{diff2|1270039369|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1270041824|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- 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|1270040704|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|1270045411|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"
#
#
#
#
#


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


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


:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
:Note that there's been no response from the user.
: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) ==
<u>Comments:</u>
I originally reported a ] a couple of months ago. I've tried to discuss this with the editor on their talkpage, but apparently I'm "banned" from that page and every attempt to enagage is met with a . On the article in question, admin {{u|Philg88}} also the change stating "Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Layout "Notes" should be used if there are any, but not for references". Phil has also raised this issue on , but with no repsonse. Phil also the issue of 4 different editor's posts being removed while trying to discuss issues with this editor. After , I'm at a loss of what to do, hence bringing this here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
:Lugnuts' basic position is that MOS does not allow the References/Notes formatting, and therefore he is justified in edit-warring to remove it from articles. In point of fact, MOS does not support any specific formatting: it describes several possibilities, and leaves the choice open to editors. I've pointed this out in various edit summaries, but this has not deterred Lugnuts from edit-warring on a number of articles in (erroneous) support of MOS, an action which ArbCom has specifically warned against in a number of decisions.<p>As for removing Lugnuts' posts form my web page, this is clearly within my purview. His contributions have not been welcome there for quite a while. For many years, I have found Lugnuts to be an aggressively obnoxious editor -- one can see why simply by looking at his user pages -- and do not wish to have his contributions on my talk page. His behavior has never been egregious enough to justify any attempt to have him sanctioned (Misplaced Pages is big enough to allow even aggresively obnoxious editors to participate), but he does make any interaction with him distinctly unpleasant, despite the excellent ] imitation he's doing in his comment above.<p>Concerning discussion of this specific issue, he and I have been through the discussion numerous times in the past - of which Lugnuts feigns lack of memory - so I did not, and do not, think it would be profitable to discuss it again, at least as long as he continues to labor under the incorrect premise that he is supporting MOS.<p>(I do not think this issue is worth the energy it would take to dig up specific diffs, but I will do so on request of an admin.) ] (]) 18:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <br />
::And now when offered some friendly advice by {{u|Philg88}}, BMK and removes the notice of . {{u|Beyond My Ken}} - now that {{u|Isaidnoway}} has also removed your edit on the article citing the MOS, are you going to revert him, without discussion, too? Comments in edit summaries? Please. You know how to discuss things like an adult via the talkpage(s) in question, so why have you not done so? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GiggaHigga127}}
:::Does Lugnuts really think it is appropriate to use this forum to attempt to litigate how I maintain my user page? And what, I wonder, does he think the purpose of an edit summary is, except to communicate with other users? ] (]) 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Just pointing out that you've been offered advice by other users and you choose to ignore them. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
::'''Comment:''' It appears that ] has reverted four times on 19 September at ] beginning at 09:03 and these reverts are just one episode in a long-running dispute. One option is a block. BMK, will you make an offer to pursue dispute resolution to avoid a block? For example, agree to open an RfC and promise to accept the outcome? ] (]) 18:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Ed, of course I have no desire to be blocked, and would consider an RfC/U were it not for my long time observation that that vehicle is almost entirely ineffective, and is very often used for prosecuting old grievances rather than for a frank discussion between editors aimed at compromise and consensus. Also, how can I possibly promise to "accept the outcome" without knowing what the outcome is? These things can go every which way, as I'm sure you know, and I'm not going to commit myself to accepting what could become a run-away attempt at petty retribution. I would be willing to promise to take the outcome of a well-focused and disciplined RfC/U seriously, though.<p>It also concerns me somewhat that you're addressing your comments only to me, without dealing with the equivalent "bright line violation" (as noted below) of Lugnuts. I'd be more inclined to agree to some sort of dispute resolution if I thought things were being dealt with even-handedly. ] (]) 19:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
::::To say you'll accept the outcome of an RfC only if it says the right thing is like saying you won't accept it. (I asked for a content RfC, not an RFCU). I think admins should block *you* rather than Lugnuts because you have signalled you will keep up this battle indefinitely, while Lugnuts wants to pursue discussion (which you evade with every possible excuse). ] (]) 19:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
::'''Comment:''' Bright line violation with edits after warning. BMK's comments avoid the 3RR issue and complain about Lugnut's EW (two to tango) or divert to talk page maintenance. Lugnuts is also a bright line violation of 3RR; Lugnuts gave the warning and continued to revert the article. BMK does have history of imposing particular style on articles and has been blocked for 3RR earlier this year on style EW; there's also an ownership flavor in the edit comment at ] . Unknowingly, I crossed paths with BMK's similar format changes at ] where BMK had reformatted sections. I reverted some of BMK's explicit character formatting to the previously existing heading styles. ] (]) 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. I can't speak for {{U|EdJohnston}}, but I think most admins are reluctant to block experienced editors with valuable contributions to the project (even though both of these editors have been blocked before). However, we pay a price when we attempt to avoid the block and come to a more reasoned resolution because many experienced editors are stubborn and reject potential solutions that they don't like or can't control. So, there's not much confusion here, but there's still a little (at least in my view). I want both editors to agree to an RfC (not an RfC/U as BMK talks about) on the reference/MOS issue (perhaps I missed it but I didn't see Lugnuts formally agree to an RfC). I will block the editor or editors who don't agree (someone has to do it). So, the ball is now in their courts: {{ping|Beyond My Ken}} {{ping|Lugnuts}} --] (]) 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
*'''Comment''' This BMK/spacing dispute has been bubbling away for years: ], ] and ]. Many editors have objected to him installing white space at the bottom of the article (to insert a gap between text and footers) so it ultimately comes down to personal preference. Personally I agree it's a visual improvement, but it is really a typesetting issue, not an editorial one. If readability of text is improved by increasing the gap between text and footers then it should be initiated across all articles in a way that is uniform on all displays. BMK should take this to the village pump rather than edit-warring spaces into articles manually, and if he did I would support his proposal. ] (]) 21:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
**Yes, Betty Logan, it has been "bubbling away" for years, and '''''every time''''' it has come up at AN or AN/I, the complaint against me has been rejected. Consistency is not a vital issue when it comes to formatting -- what's important is that our information be '''''accurate''''' and presented in a way that's effective for the reader to take in. That one article does it one way and another does it another way is really unimportant, and that is one reason why MOS is a '''''guideline''''' and not a mandatory policy.<p>Concerning an RfC about the formatting issues that Bbb23 is calling for, I would be happy to participate in a centralized discussion about that, and would follow whatever policy-compliant consensus that was to come out of it. I hope that Lugnuts will agree to that as well.<p>EdJohnston, my objection to accepting in advance the result of an RfC/U (and I did think that was what you were asking for, not an RfC) has nothing to do with whether it comes up with the "right" result, and everything to do with how it is framed and executed. I've said that I would take the result of a well-focused and disciplined RfC/U very seriously, but I've seen much too much abuse of RfC/U's to do anything more than that. As for "signalling" that I would keep up the reverts forever, I don't see how you get that from the editing, but in any case - although you have no way of verifying this - I took the article off my watchlist yesterday and have no plans to return; this despite the fact that I have been expanding the article in substantive ways while Lugnuts has merely been edit warring to enforce his favored version of formatting. ] (]) 21:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
***Just in case I buried the lede in the above comment, it included my formal agreement with Bbb23's RfC proposal. ] (]) 21:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
****I'm going to hold you to your second statement, not to your first. In particular, you must accept the result of the RfC, even if in your view it's not "policy-compliant." As an aside, I thought the issue here was about the inclusion of "Notes" more than about spacing.--] (]) 21:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
*****It was. ] (]) 21:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
******BTW, given this thread, can we book you and EdJohnston and a third admin of your choice to close the RfC? ] (]) 22:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} Let's deal with the logistics after we get Lugnuts's input. I have a feeling I've gotten myself into quite an undertaking here. In any event, Lugnuts hasn't made any edits to Misplaced Pages since I pinged him. I can't imagine how he can ever stop editing given his edit count, but apparently he manages. I may not check in myself on this board until tomorrow.--] (]) 01:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
:Sleep is my only weakness. RfC sounds good to me. How to procede with that? After trying to engage Ken in discussion and his refusal to do so (as pointed out by several editors), then it seems the best way forward. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
::Yeah, well, perhaps you can teach me how to sleep. Initially, let's move the logistics discussion to my talk page. That discussion ''must'' remain civil. I don't want to hear direct or indirect negative remarks about each other no matter what. As an aside, BMK's name is not Ken. You can call him by his full user name or by BMK for short.--] (]) 13:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Can you point me to the part of ] that states it has to be '''your''' talkpage? Surely it's the relevant MOS or article in question, so myself and Ken (and others) can participate? And seeing as it's only Ken that currently takes issue with the current MOS, then he should start it too? I'd drop a note on his talkpage to get the ball rolling, but, you know... Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
::::You're not reading my comments very carefully, Lugnuts. I didn't say the RfC was going to be held on my talk page (god forbid). I said we should discuss the logistics of the RfC on my talk page. And please stop calling him Ken.--] (]) 14:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::So a pre-RfC? OK, I'll wait for Ken to man-up and start the ball rolling. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::Or maybe it's ] with multiple editors agreeing that Ken's edits are superfluous. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 11:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Ken, we're all waiting for your excellent input. Oh, wait... ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} @Bbb23: Sorry to be delayed in responding to your suggestion. Sunday I did my part and marched for action on climate change, and Monday and today I've been under the weather and haven't felt much like editing (nothing to do with the march), and have only been picking at low-hanging fruit on my watchlist. I hope (please!!) to feel better by tomorrow, but as soon as I'm back to full speed, I'll see you on your talk page to discuss my concerns about how a neutrally-worded RfC should be set up. ] (]) 21:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:{{U|Beyond My Ken|BMK}}, I just removed your talkback from my talk page and called you a troll. It's our own fault by not creating a new section. Anyway, the edit summary was directed at the IP; sorry about that. Responding to your comment, no worries, just feel better.--] (]) 00:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==
# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
# – same
# – same
# – same
# – same, now with PA


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Mohammed Omar}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|StanTheMan87}}


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


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
User:GiggaHigga127 insists on adding the ] and ] divisions to Conor Benn's infobox. Our style guide at WikiProject Boxing, ], says to only include weight classes in which a boxer has ''notably'' competed, that being usually for regional/minor/world titles. In Benn's case, that division was ] for almost the entirety of his career, and he did indeed hold a regional title in that division. In 2023 he was given a lengthy ban from the sport, from which he recently returned in a pair of throwaway fights within the light middleweight limit, against non-notable opposition and with no titles at stake. Per the style guide, those throwaway fights are not important enough to warrant the inclusion of light middleweight in the infobox, at least until he begins competing there regularly.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#


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)
<!-- 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 -->
: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)
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ::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) ==
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tübingen School}}
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> StanTheMan87 was created last month. He keeps uploading images after they get deleted. Files that show ] he names them "Mohammed Omar" (wanted one-eyed spiritual leader of Taliban). See also . He uses images that he uploaded under fair use in multiple articles when they should only be used in one article. These images don't even qualify for Misplaced Pages because (1) they're uploaded without permission from author/owner and (2) there is no proof that the person is Mohammad Omar. It is only suggested that it may be him but that is not enough for encyclopedia purposes. People in the past have come forward to challenge the accuracy of the images. For example, Maulvi Hafizullah, a former protocol officer for the Taliban stated: "I looked at the photo and it was me. The CIA are blind and stupid." The support that Maulvi Hafizullah is telling the truth. The guy in that particular image is wearing a ] hat, Mullah Omar is from southern Afghanistan and nobody ever wears pakol hats in that region. It's like a cowboy hat being worn in New York City.--] (]) 02:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
*{{U|Krzyhorse22}}, you appear to be on an anti-StanTheMan crusade. You say that the account was created only last month. So was yours. You have made a grand total of 127 edits (not counting deleted edits), of which only 32 are to article space. The majority of your edits, 50, are to Misplaced Pages pages. Indeed, your first edits were to create a report at ] about StanTheMan. You're not even involved in the edit war you're reporting. StanTheMan reverted three times. However, so did ], whom you did not report. And Max's account was created only two days ago. There's a lot of weird stuff going on here, and, frankly, I'm not about to sort it out, but for the moment, I'm taking no action, although I'll leave the report open in case another administrator wants to look at it.--] (]) 05:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
**My first edit was nominating an image for deletion, the image was deleted and StanTheMan87 re-uploaded it and in the process my first edit was deleted. You cannot see that deleted edit of mine. That's when I began reporting StanTheMan87. I have no relations to {{User|Maxforwind}}, I was going to report him/her but got busy. I expected admins to block that person also by reporting one. I'm making constructive edits, if anyone is against this they can report me but this report is about StanTheMan87 who violated 3rr and is attacking me. If you want to allow him to violate 3rr that's a different issue. Next you're going to tell me not to report anyone who violates Misplaced Pages policy. I'm a very serious person, I don't come here to play games.--] (]) 08:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
***It's already been established that ] is indeed insane and has a deep-seated obsession over me though I do not know why. Again, this is not just my opinion, ] can attest to this rather awkward behavior exhibited by ], . Those images that I have uploaded, I did with forewarning ], and he never stated that it would be a violation then, instead simply providing pathetic excuses that the images were not legit without providing any sources to support his claims, see , , , . Note that the images uploaded have nothing to do with the one ] is ranting about . I am not going to type ten paragraphs proving my innocence and wasting my time and admins time in reading the material, in yet another trumped up charge filed by this moron, see , . The violation of WP:3RR on my part was justified, as there was no explanation given at all for the reverts, besides "Irrelevant to article" . I suspect ] is now just making accounts to hassle me on Misplaced Pages, removing the content I have uploaded through puppets e.g ], as ] has relentlessly attempted to remove the images in the past though I cannot prove they are both socks as this is just an assumption. For someone claiming to be ''"a very serious person"'', and ''"I don't come here to play games"'', ] seems to have no qualms over claiming to call CIA director ] in order to support his POV then writing it off as ''"it was a joke"'' . I just can't help but feel so sorry for those that have had to read the same nascent bullsh*t from ] over and over again. If it is determined that really, I am in fact the problem here, then ban my IP from Misplaced Pages for 12+ months becuase these constant accusations are just really starting to irritate me. ] (]) 08:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
:], KrzyHorse22 is a chronic disruptive account, possible sockpuppet and well-known lunatic (I know this is a WP:CIVIL no-no but the guy has previously claimed he was consulting with the director of the CIA on the copyright status of images, so I'm not sure how else to describe him). I'm not going to retype his whole, sordid history, because I have to do this every 5-6 days, like clockwork. If anyone would like to read it, I've posted it on ]'s Talk page (please see here ). All of KH22's edits are essentially vandalism so 3RR doesn't apply as per ]. ] (]) 06:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} (semi) for one month. StanTheMan has not breached ]. Therefore, I'm not blocking him, particularly with this rather muddled, messy history. Putting aside all the other accusations against Krzyhorse, I'm still absolutely baffled by his saying that he spoke to the director of the CIA. That's a rather absurd and "krazy" claim. I don't care that Krzyhorse says it's possible. It's a very long way from plausible or probable. However, at this point, I'm not prepared to block him, and this is not the appropriate venue for it, anyway.--] (]) 00:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
**Bbb23, you're not only an unfair person but also abusing admin power. Secondly, I don't know why you, StanTheMan87 and DocumentError keep repeating the phone call to CIA everywhere. On the day I said it I told everyone it was only a joke. Why is that such a big deal now and why can't it just be not mentioned anymore? Is it a crime to say such thing? What does calling CIA has to do with nominating image of Mohmmad Omar for deletion? StanTheMan87 clearly violated WP:3RR on ] but you say he didn't and instead threatening to block me. I'm confused what's going on here? I wish you didn't get involved here but another admin.--] (]) 01:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Ann Ree Colton}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Spidermedicine}}


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


;Diffs of the user's reverts: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|626436790|05:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)}} "/* External links */" # {{diff2|1270589185|07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|626592042|08:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)}} "General note: Removal of content, blanking on ]. (])" # {{diff2|1270588908|07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270341854|02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests}} "/* Uncontroversial technical requests */ Decline, this one is more of a histmerge request which would also be declined from ] - I'm happy to explain further on a talk page"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|626591584|08:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Slow edit warring is still edit warring */ new section"


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>


: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)
Although not over three and not within a single day, the editor has removed the same content three times in one month without discussion on talk and without appropriate edit summaries. , . The editor has also blanked a related article ] . I think a topic ban is in order. ] (]) 08:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
::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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Two articles protected) ==
:{{AN3|b|72 hours}} , I am mystified—no, make it ''stunned''—that Xpander thinks this edit-warring is justified. In what sense are they not being attributed as the page creator sufficiently for their ego? Do they mean that the ''page creation log'' isn't saying that they are? Uh, that's something the ''software'' does, that by design no one has control over. {{u|Wetman}} is going to get credit for creating the ''page'', yes, as the empty redirect it was apparently quite happy to have been for 15 years. As noted, no editor familiar with how our processes work would doubt that Xpander, in practical terms, created the ''article'' by translating the dewiki article, regardless of what the logs say.<p>Xpander's repeated reversion to the redirect is, frankly, childish behavior that smacks of ]. I strongly remind them ].<p>I also reject their argument that ] shields them as they were merely always "reverting their own edit". Technically that might be arguable, but it is ''inarguable'' that, especially given their statement that ], they did so in a manner calculated to cause ] and interfere with the work of others. To allow this to pass on that basis would be opening up a whole new way to ]. ] (]) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Addendum''': I also commend ] to {{u|Xpander1}}'s attention. ] (]) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 hours) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|R. Kelly}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Wearypoet}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Oriel High School}}
;Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|92.238.20.255}}
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=626485224|diff=626534597|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC) to 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|626533826|21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)}} "BLP Vandalism"
## {{diff2|626534519|22:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 626533826 by ] (]) I don't get why there's a "personal life" section when there's already a "life and career" section and why was the legal issues article deleted?"
## {{diff2|626534597|22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Legal issues= */"


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|626483269|14:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Final warning notice on ]. (])"


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|626483105|14:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)}} "/* legal issues */" # {{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"


;<u>Comments:</u>


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
There are numerous edits in page history specifically dating back to ''about'' last month or so when I initially attempted to engage with the editor, at which point the disruptive editing became more agressive, and a number of similar edits prior; such as these from 2013 , , and so forth (some of the earliest edits are attempts at removal of this content). The editors talk page is littered with warnings about this behaviour.


Editor seems intent on unilaterally censoring material they ] using bogus rationales (or none at all). I've attempted numerous times to engage in meaningful discussion, yet, they're unwilling to reciprocate attempts at forming consensus. The disruptive editing has resulted in a content fork at ] which was previously deleted per ], and then recreated anyway. {{U|Sushuki12}} has attempted to revert the edits but they do not engage in dialog either. They are now both edit warring it out. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</sup></span>]] 13:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments''': This IP is trying to censor information in that article --] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</u>
:There's no edit war and ] never made an attempt to engage with me in meaningful discussion. That's a lie. Instead they constantly feel the need to revert everything I edit even though what I edit is correct information.
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ] (]) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I undid that block and restored it because simply removing the block isn't really an option in response to actually disruptive editing, but the IP editor's behavior wasn't the main issue in this edit war. I'll send warnings around to people who should know better. ] (]) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==
:My issue with {{U|Sushuki12}} is that they don't know how to edit correctly nor do they cite with sources. And most of the things they include are unnecessary hence why I informed them to create a separate article which they did. I've contributed a lot to the R. Kelly page. So I don't understand all this confusion. His page was fine before all of this. ] (]) 08:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' ] <br />
:I'm so disappointed that it has come to this. I've contributed a lot on Misplaced Pages and ] had the audacity to attack me on my talk page but lie on here and claim that they have tried to engage in a discussion which is far from the truth. My edits were mainly because people wanted a "Personal life" section when Kelly's life is integrated into his career which is titled "Life and career" so I didn't understand the reason behind a "Personal life" section so I removed it. Then {{U|Sushuki12}} decided to create a poorly written article about Aaliyah on R. Kelly's page so I removed it and informed them to create a separate article about the relationship between Kelly and Aaliyah. After a number of back and forth reverse edits, they decided to create the article and post a redirect link so at this point, there's a separate article about Kelly's "legal issues" so I thought why not remove the entire section since it was basically copy and pasted into a separate article? So I posted a redirect link under his "Life and career" section and it was fine until ] decided to revert every single thing that was edited back and Kelly's page was a mess. There was two separate "life" sections and all the edits I done (which were in no way harmful) were erased. So I reverted it back and ] had the audacity to say that I was going to be blocked but on here they said he tried to engage in discussion? Again, that is false. They're not even a moderator but he felt the need to attack me and say I was going to be blocked for a "war". There was no "war", I was simply fixing Kelly's page which I've been doing for quite some time now. Of course people are going to disagree but I'm not doing any harm by fixing his page and keeping it up to date. I've contributed a lot. If {{U|Sushuki12}} had an issue with my edits then they should've tried to discuss with me but they didn't.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kelvintjy}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
:Everything was fine until {{U|Sushuki12}} decided to start editing Kelly's page and ] reversing everyone's edits back to the original state with no regard about what was fixed.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:There's no reason to block me when I've contributed a lot to that page. ] (]) 08:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
'''Result:''' The articles on ] and ] are fully protected for two weeks. Thanks to ] for finally communicating, per his above statement. (He has never posted on the article talk page). We are still waiting to hear anything at all from ], who doesn't use article talk pages. If the warring continues after protection expires, blocks are likely. If you think the articles are not correct you can propose changes on their talk pages using ]. ] (]) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230019964
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230184562


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


;Page: {{pagelinks|Book of Mormon}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Taivo}}


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
;Previous version reverted to:


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|626608949|12:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 626599563 by ] (]) not really notable"
# {{diff2|626643160|16:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 626637940 by ] (]) The New York Times also reports lottery results"
# {{diff2|626645983|17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 626644720 by ] (]) And you should know that ] applies here. When reverted, do not reinsert, but talk it out on Talk Page to build a consensus"


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


Hello
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
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) ==
;<u>Comments:</u>


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}
I made an edit-summary "you should know better than to edit-war, especially once it's obvious that at least two other experienced editors disgree with you. I won't bother templating you.", to which editor made his next edit with edit-summary "And you should know that WP:BRD applies here."--dialog indicating having read my edit-summary (so I indeed did not follow up with a formal warning on his talkpage). Literal 3RR violation, and note that his third included the apparent recognition of having read my warning. It's a valid point to have a discussion, but it's a bizarre starting point to consider the New York Times as a default non-reliable source and to do so solely because it contains some trivial/unencyclopediac facts. ] (]) 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
:] thinks that his edit summaries substitute for a discussion on the article Talk Page (which I initiated and he failed to participate in). He doesn't seem to know the the meaning of ]. He also doesn't seem to know that it takes '''''four''''' reverts to constitute a violation of ]. --] (]) 17:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
::Note that I did indeed participate. Maybe your noticing that is as {{tl|ec}} as my moments-belated noticing you had started a discussion while I was writing my edit-summary. Give-and-take via edit-summary is a common starting-point for raising a simple point (I couldn't understand how a NYT cite wasn't plausibly "notable", and still cannot really, but now we are on talk-age about that), though now we obviously do need more extensive discussion which is when we go to talkpage. And "dammit, mis-counted" also during the rapid EC...sorry about that. ] (]) 17:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Apology accepted. Perhaps you can request that this complaint be dropped as unnecessary. But "discussion through edit summary" is not the best practice in Misplaced Pages. Per ], as soon as I reverted the initial insertion of the information, the discussion should have moved to the article Talk Page. --] (]) 18:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Admin/clerk, feel free to close as withdrawn (and welcome to join us in the on-going discussion!) ] (]) 18:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Non-standard cosmology}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Yheyma}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Previous version reverted to:
# {{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 the user's reverts: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|626367620|17:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Dichotomous cosmology */" # {{diff2|1270879182|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small|(edit: corrected diff)}}
# {{diff2|626538127|22:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 626535594 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|626545209|23:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 626544687 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|626572544|04:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 626569237 by ] (])"


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|1270885380|18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" {{small|(edit: added diff, fix date)}}


;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|626661853|19:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Repeated insertion of OR */ new section"


;<u>Comments:</u> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>


Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Not a clear 3RR but clearly EW. Editor shows a lack of understanding of WP policy ] (]) 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Warned ]. If they revert again to add the disputed section at ] they may be blocked. ] (]) 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


] seems to be making a mistake here as several of those edits were of different content. You can't just list every single revert and call it edit warring. And the brief edit warring that did happen stopped as I realized I was reverting the wrong thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1270879523 ] (]) 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned, protected ) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Turkish people}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Jobas}}
<!-- 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. -->


:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:
::@] So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. ] (]) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::]: {{tq|An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. ] (]) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. ] (]) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::]: {{tq|There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons}}. – ] (]) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. ] (]) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. ] (]) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
:The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. ] (]) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. ] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording followed by after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. ] (]) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::What is a CTOP? ] (]) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::A CTOP is a ]. ] (]) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages.}} If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. ] (]) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. ] (]) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
: Based on the comment in response to the notification for this discussion, {{tq|"I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it"}}, I was quite surprised to see that the editor didn't acquire an understanding of 3RR when in 2020. That's sometime ago granted, but additionally a lack of awareness of CTOP, when there is an edit notice at Musk's page regarding BLP policy, is highly suggestive of ]. This in addition to the 3RR warning that was ignored, followed by continuing to revert other editors, and eventually arguing that it must be because I am wrong. If there is an essay based on "Everyone else must be wrong because I'm always right" I'd very much like to read it. As for this report, I primarily wanted to nip the edit war in the bud which appears to have worked for now, given the talk page warning failed to achieve anything. I otherwise remain concerned about the general ] based indicators; disruptive editing, battleground attitude, and lack of willingness to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner. ] (]) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given that ''some'' of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that covers ''all'' edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with the ''letter'', but not the ''spirit'', of 3RR (In other words, another case of ])) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS. ] (]) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We are likely to see Ergzay at ANI at some point. But as I was thinking of asking for 1RR early today; I'm fine with that decision. ] (]) 00:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Good decision. I otherwise think a final warning for edit warring is appropriate, given the 3RR violation even excluding BLPREMOVE reverts (first 4 diffs to be specific). There's nothing else to drag out here given Ergzay intends to take a step back from the Musk article, and per above, there is always the ANI route for any future incidents. ] (]) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] My statement that you quoted there is because I'm a divisive person and people often don't like how I act on Misplaced Pages and the edits I make. People have dragged me to this place several times in the past over the years and I've always found it reasonably fair against people who are emotionally involved against dragging me down. That is why I said what I did. And as to the previous warning that you claim was me "not getting it", that was 3 reverts of the same material, and with a name 3RR the association is automatic. Edit: And I'll additionally add, I'm most certainly interested in building an accurate encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources. I'm still very happy to use sources that exist and they should be used whenever possible, but in this modern day and age of heavily politicized and biased media, editors more than ever need to have wide open eyes and use rational thinking. ] (]) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


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


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}}
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{diff|oldid=1271008210|diff=1271008905|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
User has broken 3RR and has made false accusations against me in his edit summaries. ] (]) 19:07, 22 September 2014 (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:'''
*{{AN3|w}} {{user|Jobas}} because he received no warning prior to this report being filed and because he has no prior blocks for edit warring. {{AN3|p}} for five days to allow discussion of the disputed content on the talk page so that consensus on its inclusion may be reached. ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 19:34, 22 September 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:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==


;Page: {{pagelinks|Human}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Madere}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Previous version reverted to:
*This is straight-up vandalism. {{U|BusterD}} semi-protected the article for one week, and I've blocked ] for two weeks.--] (]) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|626680377|21:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)}} "The "dispute" is with you, in any case, your you are the one that must go to the talk or stop disturbing the article."
# {{diff2|626615061|13:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)}} "It is necessary to show to the human being in its natural state, like the animal that really it is. It is not necessary to go to the talk, there is no such a dispute."
# {{diff2|626613221|12:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Such a consensus never existed, you can check in the discussion. Thank you."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

;<u>Comments:</u>

There is an attempt to resolve at talk, to no avail so far. 3RR warning left here last revert was after the warning. ] (]) 21:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Still . --] <sup>]</sup> 21:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ]<sup><i>]</i></sup> 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Warning, protection) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|ISIS}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Red Slash}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|626685832|22:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|626686823|22:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)}} "/* September 2014 */ well, you're at your 1RR, so you need to be aware of it..."

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Edit warring on ] redirect. Reverted by 3 editors. 1RR limit reached on hatnote on ] . Previous disruption on ] redirect and related. Ask for admin to notify ] as these redirects are related. Setting ISIS and ISIL unilateral ] without due discussion. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 22:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

:Well, after nine years of editing and some 10,000 edits (roughly), getting reported to WP:AN is a first. I have not violated either the spirit or the letter of 3RR, which requires three reverts in a 24-hour period. And I have no idea what on earth my alleged infringing upon a "1RR limit" is supposed to refer to; I changed a hatnote on the main article to make it one line instead of two (The horror!), and I can't see how that's a revert (I did "undo" a previous editor's edit to make that happen, and maybe I should've just copy-pasted the template in instead).

:As for the actual problem, which is the redirect at ], I have not found WP:RFD to be amenable to efficient discussions (I recall ] taking so long that I unilaterally closed a discussion I was ] in and begging anyone to revert me and make a decision to close the discussion--which nobody took me up on), so I'm not sure where a logical discussion on ] could be held that would lead to a speedy result for that redirect. But the evidence is obvious. Pageviews for all capitalizations of ISIS (right now grok.se is down for me so I can't prove it) have skyrocketed over the past few months, and you get one guess as to why that is. To me, this is so obvious that I'm not entirely sure why anyone would disagree, but if someone wants to seriously suggest that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant isn't the primary topic... I mean, sure, we can talk about it. But I'm in the business of getting readers to the articles that they want, and if you can see that 90+% of our readers are looking for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant when they type in ISIS, you'll get why WP:IAR is pretty doggone valid here. ]] 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

::Also note that ] still redirects to ]. Red Slash, whatever <s>merge</s> you did, you didn't even do it correctly. (And do ] for this ] edit war.) – ] (]) 02:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)<p><small>(Update: I mean "retarget", sorry. ] (]) 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC))</small>

:::I did no merge. I moved ] (which was a disambiguation page) to a different location so that ] could redirect straight to the topic everyone wants to read about. And the discussion you linked to says nothing at all about where ] should point to. ]] 02:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

::::Anyway, I put an RfC up... ] ]] 03:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::Two things:
::::::{{ping|Widefox}} This request is malformed. You have not provided the diffs of the edit warring (though I can see it in the talk page). Would you mind including those diffs above?
::::::{{ping|Red Slash}} You're right - after 10,000 edits this may be a first - and you've already been templated. After the second revert (or even the first) you should have taken it to the talk page. You're currently at 4RR - I would suggest stopping, lest you may find yourself blocked a little faster. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 03:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::], what are you referring to? Please help, I mean it sincerely. I have absolutely no idea what you might be referring to. 4RR? (And I've been templated a kajillion times--that part doesn't concern me.) ]] 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::::4RR means that you've reverted someone (or others) four times within 24 hours, which is a blockable issue - as it's considered ]. I meant that you've already been templated as in - a warning about edit warring has already been placed on your talk page so I'm not going to place anther one... besides, I don't like ]. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 03:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm sorry, ], I don't understand. What is this about? ]] 03:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)7
::::::::::{{ec}} I'm wrong - you've reverted twice within the last 24 hours. IIRC everything related to the Syrian Civil War is subject to a 1RR sanction - which means that you can only revert once within 24 hours or you may be blocked for edit warring. See ]. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 03:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Ah. Well, ], that explains that. I forgive you, with or without an apology. I am not an editor who fools around with 3RR and being accused of 4RR and getting threatened with a block concerned me, but I now see it was a mistake. <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> If there is a 1RR rule applied to anything related to the Syrian Civil War (which does make sense, though it was news to me), I will not violate that again; indeed, I even apologize for having unwittingly done so. Thank you for clearing things up.
{{outdent}} My apologies again. {{ping|EdJohnston}} if you're willing - I think this could get closed as {{AN3|w}}? <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 03:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Red Slash, It would be helpful to whichever admin closes this if you would agree to refrain from any more unilateral changes concerning the name ] or any other names that may have something to do with the Islamic State. You have now redirected ] three times, which may possibly break the 1RR on everything related to the Syrian Civil War, and there is a long list of people who disagree with you. Continuing here with an indignant defence of your actions could make the closing admin think that a block is the only way to get your attention. I assume that's not the case. ] (]) 03:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::], can you help me please? I am so confused. I have reverted an edit on this twice in the last week (both today), which I'm pretty sure is nowhere near 3RR. I have no idea what rules, written or otherwise, I may have broken. I filed an RfC on ], ], and that'll have to do. ]] 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::You changed ] into a redirect to the Islamic State and then twice on 22 September (, ). By doing so you joined in a long-running war that was begun by others. Each time your change was reverted by someone else. Your 22 September edits appear to break . ] (]) 03:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Ah, I see. ], thank you. I had not been aware of any sanctions applying to ], which was a disambiguation page when I found it. I was even less aware of any ongoing wars (except, sigh, for the actual ones). I will adapt my behavior. ]] 03:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Red Slash is warned for ]. The ] article (currently a redirect to ]) is fully protected one month. The ] process is available if anyone disagrees with how these articles are currently named. ] (]) 04:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
*:Well, let's discuss on the talk page now like civilized people and unlike the people who are the subject of the Islamic State article. – ] (]) 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of Nvidia graphics processing units}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|175.141.37.33}}

<!-- 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: <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=625901068</ref>

<!-- 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:
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=625916545</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=625981954</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626002121</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626044874</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626059447</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626111848</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626113667</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626114310</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626114487</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626114840</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626115405</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626115684</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626115954</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626116265</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626116543</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626116757</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626116929</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626115954</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626121553</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626127974</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626128360</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626128679</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626131517</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626132038</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626318334</ref><br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626504977</ref><br />

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626299502</ref> (Second previous version before him continuing on the 20th.)

<!-- 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:
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:175.141.37.33&oldid=626318238</ref> (Non warned, only asked.)<br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:175.141.37.33&oldid=626551856</ref> (Warned for edits.)<br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:175.141.37.33&oldid=626559601</ref> (Warned for talk page harassment.)

<u>Comments:</u>
The user has been doing this for days, at first he was reverting with someone else with semi-valid information. After the first 2 cards released they stopped being reverted and I ensured the table was correct, he continued to add a 3rd unreleased card. This has been going on for days and the user is also harassing using edit comments and talk page edits.
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jase240&oldid=626615017</ref>
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jase240&oldid=626615063</ref>
Also to note after he was warned, he blanked his talk page multiple times.

Other comments:
I apologize if I did not follow the proper warning and reporting method in this case, I have tried to read through the rules to warn and report as much as possible and hope I did it right.

] (]) 04:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. {{U|Jase240}}, you didn't do it right. You're not supposed to list refs, and the pointers to the reverts in the article should be '']'', not links. Finally, as the instructions say at the top of this page, you are required to notify the other user of this report (I did it for you).--] (]) 05:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Thanks for fixing that, I'll remember to list diffs like so next time and I can't believe I forgot about the notifying after telling myself to notify him. Thanks for resolving this also!
] (]) 05:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
-
Alright, he switched his IP and is now using the following: ]<br />
<br />
He immediately reverted the edit on the page again, I also warned the new IP for the edit.
He also has already blanked his talk page from the warning: ] (]) 07:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Steven Emerson}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Serialjoepsycho}}

<!-- 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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#
#


I added the word "Foundation" to a section heading because it is part of the organization's correct legal name. He reverted it back to the common name. I also added more information to the section for accuracy, and he did revert that, too. I was not going to keep reverting him, or I'd be the one in trouble.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning - I warned him on his Talk page about his disruptive editing: ]

He responded by posting a warning to my Talk page:

I was forced to file an ANI against him a few days ago for his relentless disruptions, hounding and civility violations, and requested a topic ban. To date, there has not been a response from an admin. They left my previous ANI unresolved as well, which explains why he has become so emboldened.

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

Please, I just want him to stop so I can do my job as an editor. He has made little to no edit contributions on any of the articles. I am the lead editor on the IPT article where he has also spitefully reverted my edits. He spends the majority of his time hawking talk pages, and hounding me. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 06:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:I have to point to this page This is the Sreven Emerson Revision history page. While above you will see that Atsme has linked 6 revisions. If you check the Revision history you will only find 4. of these followed a revision by myself. Unless I'm mistaken sequential edits count as one. That would be 2 reverts. If I am mistaken about sequential edits counting as one then you will find Atsme herself is in violation as she has 4 reverts with two being sequential as well.] (]) 07:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::I would like to further add that Atsme has This on and a . It's very interesting seeking a consensus and removing material related to that consensus she is seeking. It's also interesting raising the same issue in multiple locations, ANI, AFD, and a merge proposal on a talk page linked to ]. If she can't get it one way can she get it another way. Really seems like gaming the system and I do to question if this 3RR report might abuse of process as outlined by ].] (]) 07:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Learn to count. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 07:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Let's count them shall we? Here again is the Steven Emerson . is the first one. and is the second and third ones and they are sequential. . Or where you not talking about my edits? We can count yours as well. Here's yours , , , and . Number 3 and 4 of yours are sequential.] (]) 07:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC
:::::] Revision history:
:::::(cur | prev) 23:37, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,703 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Undid revision 626720711 by Atsme (talk) Reverting pov edit.)
:::::(cur | prev) 23:29, September 22, 2014‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,647 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (Undid revision 626719697 by Serialjoepsycho (talk) Stop reverting correct information and replacing with incorrect information. You are edit warring.)
:::::(cur | prev) 23:28, September 22, 2014‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,703 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (Stop. You are edit warring. The correct name is The Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION - an encyclopedia is not the place for commonality.)
:::::(cur | prev) 23:15, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,692 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Partial revert)
:::::(cur | prev) 23:00, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,636 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (Undid revision 626717804 by Atsme (talk) because it is a POV change)
:::::(cur | prev) 22:48, September 22, 2014‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,605 bytes) (-31)‎ . . (Undid revision 626717270 by Serialjoepsycho (talk) Leave it alone - the section is about the steps that led to the FOUNDATION, not about his dba, IPT)
:::::(cur | prev) 22:41, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,636 bytes) (+32)‎ . . (→‎The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation)
:::::^^^^Atsme=3, Serialjoepsycho=4. My edits were to improve the article. Your edits were vandalism. Read the rule: {{xt|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.}} You refuse to accept responsibility for your actions even when you are caught red handed. And the only thing "interesting" about my Afd, ANI, and raising the same issue is the fact that you refuse to stop despite my good faith attempts to stop you. You have no boundaries, or respect for policy. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 14:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
You actually missed one. At 21:03, September 22, 2014‎ was your first revert. Here's a link to it again . As far as vandalism I'm not aware of any. What I am aware of is that you are trying to get a consensus in multiple locations for ] and you are removing any traces of it from the Steven Emerson page before you receive a consensus.You want to Delete the article at AFD, You want to merge the article with Steven Emerson on the talk page of Steven Emerson, and in the actual article of Steven Emerson you are trying to remove it. I think ] applies with that particularly instance. Having this here, at ani, AFD, and ect seems a whole lot like ]. You are really hedging your bets.] (]) 15:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:You are incorrect. That is not a revert. It was the first edit that YOU reverted. Your gaming strategy is not going to work here because the issue is clear, and accurately documented. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 16:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::That is a revert. You did undo another editors work. That was the first of four in 24 hours. And BTW, The post I made on Atsme page, Check the next edit on her page .] (]) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::That is not a revert. Since you don't edit or contribute prose to improve articles, you may not fully understand the process of editing to add, improve, and/or correct inaccuracies of factual, documented information. It has nothing do with POV. Review ]. My first edit was to ADD the word "Foundation" to correct the section title. YOU reverted my edit. Do you not understand what "revert" means? I also added prose which you also reverted, and by doing so created disruption to the project despite the warnings. YOU were not only disruptive, you violated the 3RR with your 4th revert. Please allow the admins to do their job, and form their own conclusions based on the documentation. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 17:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Serialjoepsycho|Atsme}} you are both exhibiting an unwillingness to collaborate with each other. Neither of you have attempted to discuss this on the talk page. Atsme - your edit removed sourced material. Further, the items that you're adding are unreferenced, and especially with articles such as this more often than not you're going to need some sourcing. Joe - just because you haven't actually ''reached'' 3RR yet, you can still be blocked for attempting to game the system and exhibiting edit warring behaviors. You both need to stop and go to the talk page. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 18:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::There is a conversation going on. Multiple conversations going on. In Multiple locations about this subject. ], ], ], and probably a few other places. Her changes that I reverted go against any attempt at working towards a consensus. It is bad faith negotiating. In her first revert She removed the main page link to the investigative project on terrorism, she removed mention of it, and removed mention of it's 1995 start. All of which she is seeking a consensus for in one way or another in one of those 3 conversations. . I have no intention of gaming the system at all. I'm actually currently waiting for some of these discussions to close so that I can take this to ARBCOM without gaming the system.] (]) 18:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::That may be why there's so much confusion between the two of you. Disputed content should be discussed on the article's talk page, and these multiple conversations are likely to confuse any such person. Try consolidating this stuff to the talk page. From what I can see, neither of you have attempted to discuss this disputed content, but then again, I'm only looking for the most recent edits to the talk page. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 18:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Dusti, his response was designed to purposely cause confusion, and it apparently worked. That's how he operates. I've had 7 months of his antics, and often wondered how I've been able to edit in spite of them. Please just look at the reverts - he has 4. In fact, look at the article's revision history for September 22, and you will quickly see he has violated the 3RR which begins with his revert directly following my first edit: . Thank you. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 19:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::: {{u|Dusti}}, there's one thing I forgot to add for clarification to what you said as follows: "Atsme - your edit removed sourced material." Just so you'll know, I am the lead editor for the IPT article, and the section I edited in ] was about his association with the IPTF. The version I removed was sourced using a self-published online blog . My edit was made using a reliable secondary source . So yes, I improved the article by correcting the information using a reliable source. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Perhaps that's where the issues started {{U|Atsme}}. There's no such thing as a "lead editor". We certainly have individuals who have started articles, but we're all equal and we all collaborate together. See ] for further information. With just over 1,000 edits, I'm afraid you have a lot to learn. I suggest stepping back and trying to work with {{U|Serialjoepsycho}} on the ]. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 23:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|KRBK}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ciller}}

<!-- 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: and

<u>Comments:</u> <br /> This is not a 3RR report but a general edit-warring report. ] is a single-purpose account who , and is persistently reinserting a list of non-notable names despite numerous explanations why they don't belong as well as links to discussions showing that yes, this is a consensus and not just an editor or two with . The editor has made no attempt whatsoever to use the article talk page, despite numerous requests to do so. - ] (]) 12:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Intercontinental Cup (football)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Dantetheperuvian}}

<!-- 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: basically all article talk page.

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

] was also reported in ] for insulting me 3 times. ] (]) 19:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:I think you're taking the "insults" a little too much to heart - though I have placed a note on their talk page along with a proper ]. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 19:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::I think you're taking the insults lightly but thanks for the warning. ] (]) 21:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::To be honest, if "troll" or "fuck" are the worst things you're called during your tenure at Misplaced Pages - you'll be fine. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 23:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Reporting party blocked ) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Predator2014}}

The above mentioned user undone sourced material provided by me, accusing me of spreading rumors/fringe theories.The issue is about Turkish '''alleged''' involvement.Predator ignored my offer to discuss it with other editors, instead undoing my edit without proper explanation.] (]) 20:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

::Actually, I agreed to discuss this issue (If you are talking about your offer at the Talk page). But I believe that questionable information should be deleted until the compromise found.] (] • ]) 20:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

*{{user|Catlemur}} {{AN3|b|48 hours}}. ]. Catlemur has reverted several users over the same edit the last three days and has violated the three-revert rule. <s>No one other than Catlemur has more than three reverts total, so I've declined to block anyone else.</s> ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
**Actually, I've been informed this is a 1RR article...timeout while I review this. ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 20:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
***{{user|Catlemur}} and {{user|Predator2014}} of the 1RR restriction; Catlemur's block still for 3RR and not blocking Predator2014 due to his not having received notification of the sanctions. ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Steve Cohen (Magician)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|93.173.134.213}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|626846537|02:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)}} "http://www.chambermagic.com/jewish-museum-houdini-private-dinner"
# {{diff2|626845616|02:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Steve Cohen IS Jewish, raised in a Jewish family AND a member of Jewish organizations. http://en.wikipedia.org/Cohen_(surname) It is in the news."
# {{diff2|626844896|02:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)}} "http://en.wikipedia.org/Cohen_(surname)"
# {{diff2|626844765|02:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Biography */ http://en.wikipedia.org/Cohen_(surname)"
# {{diff2|626812454|20:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)}} "http://en.wikipedia.org/Cohen_(surname)"
# {{diff|oldid=626524231|diff=626753923|label=Consecutive edits made from 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC) to 12:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|626753660|12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)}} "COHEN http://en.wikipedia.org/Cohen_(surname)"
## {{diff2|626753923|12:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|626844844|02:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|626845164|02:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Vandalism on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|626846608|02:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Vandalism on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

warned and his edits were also reverted by User:Collect. Block him for 1month. His source isnt reliable ] (]) 02:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:41, 22 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Read the bright read box at WP:3RR (. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Objective3000 So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. Ergzay (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. Ergzay (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. Ergzay (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:3RR: There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. – RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. Ergzay (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
    The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. Ergzay (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording "LMAO, this is as trustworthy as Fox News" followed by "cannot see the pertinence of this" after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. Ergzay (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    What is a CTOP? Ergzay (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    A CTOP is a WP:CTOP. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. Ergzay (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Based on the comment in response to the notification for this discussion, "I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it", I was quite surprised to see that the editor didn't acquire an understanding of 3RR when previously warned for edit warring in 2020. That's sometime ago granted, but additionally a lack of awareness of CTOP, when there is an edit notice at Musk's page regarding BLP policy, is highly suggestive of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. This in addition to the 3RR warning that was ignored, followed by continuing to revert other editors, and eventually arguing that it must be because I am wrong. If there is an essay based on "Everyone else must be wrong because I'm always right" I'd very much like to read it. As for this report, I primarily wanted to nip the edit war in the bud which appears to have worked for now, given the talk page warning failed to achieve anything. I otherwise remain concerned about the general WP:NOTHERE based indicators; disruptive editing, battleground attitude, and lack of willingness to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner. CNC (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given that some of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that covers all edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with the letter, but not the spirit, of 3RR (In other words, another case of why we can't have nice things)) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    We are likely to see Ergzay at ANI at some point. But as I was thinking of asking for 1RR early today; I'm fine with that decision. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Good decision. I otherwise think a final warning for edit warring is appropriate, given the 3RR violation even excluding BLPREMOVE reverts (first 4 diffs to be specific). There's nothing else to drag out here given Ergzay intends to take a step back from the Musk article, and per above, there is always the ANI route for any future incidents. CNC (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @CommunityNotesContributor My statement that you quoted there is because I'm a divisive person and people often don't like how I act on Misplaced Pages and the edits I make. People have dragged me to this place several times in the past over the years and I've always found it reasonably fair against people who are emotionally involved against dragging me down. That is why I said what I did. And as to the previous warning that you claim was me "not getting it", that was 3 reverts of the same material, and with a name 3RR the association is automatic. Edit: And I'll additionally add, I'm most certainly interested in building an accurate encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources. I'm still very happy to use sources that exist and they should be used whenever possible, but in this modern day and age of heavily politicized and biased media, editors more than ever need to have wide open eyes and use rational thinking. Ergzay (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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