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 03:07, 15 September 2015 view sourceQwirkle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,849 edits →User:Alexbrn reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: Stale)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:52, 22 January 2025 view source Daniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators225,776 edits →User:Ergzay reported by User:CommunityNotesContributor (Result: 1RR imposed on article): another pertinent essayTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{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 = 294 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Popular_Republican_Union_(2007)}} <br />
'''Users being reported:''' {{userlinks|Oliv0}}, {{userlinks|Francis Le français}}


'''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: After and ban of ],
# {{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"
# 4 hours from edit war conclusion, ] by returning to Francis le Francais' version
# Not a day passed after ban of Francis, he was banned for
# To see the previous
# ] did not wait the result of this new Edit Warring incident to


<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:
I think is enough explanation


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:
* On previous 3RR, I explained for solving the issue.
* Another user ] is warning ] that . Answered by on the neutrality of ]


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
Please note that a has been opened against ] and his group. ] (]) 03:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
:See : no threats or attacks from me. was perfectly justified in the edit summary and goes against no dispute resolution, since ] only blocked the one infringing R3R and did not conclude as to which version is "]". Now , falsely stating in its edit summary that my modification had no justification except private attacks and that he is restoring the state of things to the previous resolution of an edit war, undoes my removal of POV in the article, so the question is: should ''I'' or somebody else undo it? ] (]) 06:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
:: Your diff mentions half a sentence and your comments on the talk page about personal attacks is 4 lines + 20 from your crew. You justified your revert on several topics and summarized by "'' addition of "gaullism", "centrist" and removal of section about Internet activism certainly goes against NPOV, article improved by undoing this''". Just to discuss one claim, Centrism has been extensively discussed on the talk page and the only undoubtedly neutral user participating in the page, ], concluded that the proper translation for English native is "centrist". I did not agree neither as I preferred "syncretic" but since Ravenswing is neutral, I apply his proposal as a proper consensus. I do not understand why your opinion should prevail on previous discussions and consensus reached on the talk page. <br>
:: By the way, on a side note to admin, ] did not wait the result of this new Edit Warring incident to . ] (]) 01:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
:::This is a copy of your answer at WP:AN/I, see : your assertion is false, ] Ravenswing did not say that "centrist" is a good English word for what the micro-party calls "neither left nor right / above left and right" (that is, focusing on anti-europeanism and not on left-right divisions). ] (]) 06:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
:::: So you say Ravenswing did not say "centrist" is the proper word to describe UPR's political positioning? It does not look like you even checked the link. Rather than interpretation, I'll just quote his words . This is the best evidence that you just impose your POV without even checking prior discussions and even ignoring others' input. I did not agree with him, but I agree on the logic he brought for the sake of the consensus. This is . So who is not neutral here? ] (]) 08:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::This is also a copy of your answer at WP:AN/I (please stop, this is getting off topic), see mine there: here ''you'' are being non neutral, Ravenswing only said that the English word is not to be avoided because of the French meaning, which does not say it is the appropriate word in English. In fact, "centrist" and "gaullism" mentioned in my edit summary quoted above and probably even "syncretic" are all a POV attempt at a more positive vocabulary than the sources. ] (]) 08:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::: It is not off-topic here. Admin needs to understand why you keep reverting and make a war edit supporting the changes of Francis le Francais that had been banished a day for that. If Ravenswing did not think it was the appropriate word, he would not have made this change. It is , then as I did not agree that "centrism" would be the proper word. Since I failed to convince him, I accepted the term for the sake of the consensus instead of making an edit war imposing my point of view. You see the difference between me and you? You think you are right and that is not questionable. If someone neutral brings a change, I discuss it calmly. By the way, note that "syncretic" was not my idea neither but . I guess everything is said, admins have all info to judge the case. ] (]) 23:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::::So far you did not mention Ravenswing wrote "centrism" in the article, the talk page is more important and does not conclude "centrism". Stick to the independent sources, they do not mention ] for this party. And the "difference between me and you" is that I am neutral and you are the POV-pusher with a ] as a well-known ] who wants to control the article that you think your ], while accusing everybody else to do so. ] (]) 05:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{AN3|n}}: I will have no or little Internet access (in the mountains) for 6 days starting this afternoon. ] (]) 08:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: So you finally admit you were wrong to revert without discussion. Yes, I can not mention in the revert summary all the 20 reasons why Francis Le Francais revert is wrong. That is why I keep driving you to the talk page, that you refuse to do and stick to your revert. Refusing the discussion assuming that anyway you are right is a POV and has no justification for Edit warring. I think the case can be judged, everything is said. ] (]) 01:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:] lies (i know it's a strong word) about history and the sources. I demonstrate that on the talk page several times. ] don't respect the wikipedia's rules about sources (] ] etc ) and he tries to have a "false-consensus" on bad source not reliable...
# he invites on talk page but his (weak)reponse goes by 4 months after.
# he calls vandalism everything !
# he protects bad sources
# ]
# & & POV and addition of bad sources, redundant information, '''lie''' ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie)
# addition of bad sources (one doesn't speak of the subject)
# removes a critical source
# '''lie''' and POV about the source + false explanation cause no consensus on talk/discussion page = second '''lie'''
# all the same with false explanations that change each time = war edit & & & & & & removes a critical source, canceling {{citation needed}}, addition of bad sources. '''lies again''', "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie.
:All information on PRU talk page. He selects only positive informations about his party (PRU / asselineau) and tries to erase the criticism sources. I think it's a big big conflict of interest.--] (]) 07:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:: Hello, everything was already answered to Francis le Francais, but the answers are always considered weak and/or endless answered with same claim, if it does not valid his point of view. If an Admin needs me to answer point by point to his claim, I can do it upon request. Otherwise, you can just refer to the . ] (]) 23:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GiggaHigga127}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sulfoxaflor}} <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sulfilimine}} <br />


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Abductive}}
# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
# – same
# – same
# – same
# – same, now with PA


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
Previous version reverted to:


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xpander1}}
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
The editor has been attempting in each diff, to insert their own original research that the chemical sulfoxalfor is in a different class of insecticides called neonicotinoids instead of what scientific sources currently describe it as (sulfoximine) and later using newspapers not reliable for scientific claims to do so. Additionally, they have been inserting completely unsourced content claiming, "Dow had been attempting to evade classifying the chemical as a neonicotinoid since neonicotinoids are harmful to bees." while also adding while commenting that future approvals, "are expected to be quashed in the near future." completely unsourced and highly editorialized POV. They have also moved over to ] doing much of the same.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
As of this time, Abuductive has not even attempted to use the article talk page, even after being asked in edit summaries and the talk page itself rather than edit war the content back in (I've run myself up to 3RR trying to get them there):
# {{diff2|1270585353|07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Self-reverting as per ]"
*"(Undo editorializing language and misstatement that these are neonicotinoids per source. These are different a different class.)"
# {{diff2|1270579742|06:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270517034 by ] (]): Please see the redirect page for adding new edits"
*"(Undid revision 680478982 by Abductive (talk) still incorrect according to source. Please discuss on talk page per WP:BRD if that isn't clear.)"
# {{diff2|1270517034|22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270516481 by ] (]): Please avoid making an edit war, I asked you nicely"
*"(Remove WP:OR (please read source and again discuss per WP:BRD instead of edit warring), Also removed editorializing again. Consensus is needed through discussion at this point for these removed edits."
# {{diff2|1270516481|22:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1270515748|22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270489731 by ] (]): Please add the new sources to ] Best."
# {{diff|oldid=1270482917|diff=1270489731|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1270484281|19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) other editors simply continued my original work, which I respect"
## {{diff2|1270489731|19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Redirecting page the newly created page"
# {{diff2|1270482597|19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Reverting my own edit to contest page creation attribution"
# {{diff2|1270267829|19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
I'm asking for a short block at this point as the editor seems to be coming in with an extremely strong point of view and is attempting to edit war their unsourced views in across articles. In addition to not using the talk page, they have resorted to personal attacks and calling me a corporate shill on their talk page. Regardless, bringing the pages back to their last stable version would be preferable, especially if page protection is done on either page., This currently is not in the scope of the current GMO arbcom case since we're only dealing with an insecticide here. I can't work with the behavior issues, but the sourcing issues could have been handled if they used the talk page rather than continue to edit war. It looks like there are more behavior issues associated with edit warring with this editor though as opposed to a regular content dispute, so I'm looking for some help here. ] (]) 13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270589185|07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
*This chumly knows full well that I have provided sources. The ] made a legal finding that the pesticide is in fact a neonicotinoid. This I have backed up with sources. I strongly suspect that ] is editing for ]. Of course, I can't prove it, but I note that User:Kingofaces43 is at arbcom for similar problems. <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 16:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
::Comments like the above are why I'm go so far to look for a block in clear violation of while using it as a justification for edit warring. While it's true we're definitely trying to weed out some of this behavior at ArbCom in GMOs, we definitely don't allow that in other topics either. The source currently says nothing of this specific claim for content made here (not to mention not being reliable for scientific claims and in clear opposition to previously cited sources). The problematic behavior related to edit warring should be clear in the diffs though as this editor is personalizing content and edit warring it in. ] (]) 16:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:::All the wikilawyering in the world isn't going to stop the articles from reflecting the court's finding. <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 19:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
::::You're here because you've demonstrated clear edit warring behavior and refusing to use the talk page to resolve any content issues, but on top of that you're making up content that isn't in the sources you are using against ] in additional to violating conduct policy regarding other editors. I'm normally one to just opt for page protection and move on to discussion, but the lack of acknowledgement of the various problem behaviors by Abductive seems to indicate something else is needed to prevent this in the future. ] (]) 23:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nve}} {{ping|Abductive}} this dispute can probably be resolved quickly if only you pursue ] rather than edit war over this. ] ] 05:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
::], could you clarify a bit more on your above comment? I'm seeing four distinct times Abductive tried to insert the content within about a 6 hour period, not to mention completely avoiding the talk page when asked to go there multiple times even if one is going to ignore the other behavior issues such as personal attacks associated with the edit warring. That's only on one page, and they went over to another to insert similar content after they got the edit war warning. Even if ] isn't broken, it also clearly states that it's possible to edit war without breaking it, and we have a pretty blatant case of that here no matter how you cut it. This is serious edit warring behavior that I'm concerned might be emboldened if not addressed directly, and that's all I'm really asking at this point even though I've seen people blocked for less than this here in the past. ] (]) 22:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
:::Because I keep improving the articles and adding sources, which you ]. <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 04:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
::::<s>Still no attempt by Abductive to use the talk page at this time to discuss the sourcing problems after</s> two more reverts. This is starting to get really sloppy with their attempts to only communicate through edit summary, so I really need to ask an admin to step in at this point. I've more than done my part to get things rolling on the to hammer out some finer details, yet we're seeing a very one-sided problem with respect to edit warring here from Abductive. ] (]) 05:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::Looks like they've bumped up to 3RR again. . Could someone at least just return the article to the status quo version before this all started and set up page protection for awhile to at least close this case here for awhile? ] (]) 15:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===Violation of 3RR (Result: )===
# {{diff2|1270588908|07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply"
3RR has been breeched by Abductive (in about 4 hours), so can we please either get a block or a return to the status quo version with page protection to stop this constant disruption?
# {{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>
My original edit that was reverted each time:


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)
# 23:51, September 13, 2015
# 00:28, September 14, 2015
# 01:12, September 14, 2015
# 02:07, September 14, 2015


: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)
Thanks to ] for attempting to bring this back to the status quo before being reverted by Abductive. I'm not going to be able to do it, so we need someone to get it across to Abductive that this is extremely inappropriate edit warring. Others have referred to these actions as vandal-like contributions. ] (]) 13:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
::As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on ] and on the . ] (]) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*I change my contributions each time to add more sources and clarifications. Meanwhile, as can be seen on the talk page, ] insists that the NYT is a bad source, and that an industry group sponsored by Dow Chemical Company is somehow independent. <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 16:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
::As has been shown to you many times ] is not ]. It's possible to gain consensus on certain areas, but one needs to work on that at the talk page first before re-adding content after it's clear the initial edit isn't sticking. That's why you are currently sitting at four reverts today. It's extremely clear this user is completely ignoring ] looking at all the edits they've continued to make after their fourth revert rather than self-revert. It does appear to be a method of gaming ] by inserting all these edits at this time. I'm not going to get drug into the behavior side of things any further though, so I'll let others here address your behavior at this point. ] (]) 18:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:::Adding sources that back up my position isn't reverting, it's building the encyclopedia. <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 22:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


The Teahouse discussion can be found (for now) at ]. Please see also ] and ]. ] (]) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
:{{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|Labour Party (UK)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|RobinHammon}}


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|92.238.20.255}}
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|680679147|13:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)}} "The leader of a party and the members of that party *define* what the party is. 60% voted for a radical left winger. They have the ultimate last word. Stop changing it to something everyone disagrees with."
# {{diff2|680678352|13:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)}} "This is what everyone thinks. Ask Jeremy Corbyn if Labour is left wing or not."
# {{diff|oldid=680672545|diff=680672700|label=Consecutive edits made from 12:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC) to 12:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|680672631|12:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 680672455 by ] (])"
## {{diff2|680672700|12:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 680672545 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|680672403|12:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 680672319 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|680670069|12:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Jeremy Corbyn is radically left wing, now the leader of Labour. To say Labour is "centre-left" is quite frankly a joke."


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|680678829|13:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (])"


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|1270686162|19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
# {{diff2|1270685824|19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
# {{diff2|1270685483|19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
# {{diff2|1270684934|19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
# {{diff2|1270683674|19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"




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


User has been pushing the idea that the Labour Party is now suddenly left-wing as the left-wing MP, Jeremy Corbyn, has been elected to the leadership. {{user|Dnm}} has also broken 3RR on this page. ] <small>(]/])</small> 13:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|48 hours}} – ] (]) 02:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments''': This IP is trying to censor information in that article --] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</u>
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*{{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) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Template:WWE personnel}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Wrabbjr902}}


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


Previous version reverted to: '''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:'''
<!-- 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. -->
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
Diffs of the user's reverts: (4 reverts within 5 hours today)
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081
# reverts in part by {{u|HHH Pedrigree}}, including moving Christian to '''Unassigned personnel'''
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230019964
# reverts in part by HHH Pedrigree and / or {{u|ClassicOnAStick}}, including moving Billie Kay, Nia Jax and Peyton Royce out from '''Unassigned personnel'''
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230184562
# reverts in part an by {{u|Keith Okamoto}}, including moving Billie Kay, Nia Jax and Peyton Royce out from '''Unassigned personnel'''
# reverts in part another by Keith Okamoto, including moving Billie Kay, Nia Jax and Peyton Royce out from '''Unassigned personnel'''


<!-- 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: HHH Pedrigree and Keith Okamoto


<!-- 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: Back on 6 September, in response to edits made by Wrabbjr902, I started a discussion on why Christian should not be in '''Unassigned personnel''', but Billie Kay, Nia Jax and Peyton Royce should be. I pinged Wrabbjr902, who did not respond. Wrabbjr902 started an edit war over these items (and others as well) today. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 08:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Wrabbjr902 has a long warnings on their talk page over unconstructive editing, particularly on ] and ]. There has been at least level 3 warning for a wrestling / WWE-related subject. Wrabbjr902's customary response is to their talk page after receiving a warning. ]] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">]</span>''' 08:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hard left}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garageland66}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Persistent edit-warring over articles on UK left-wing politics. See ] and particularly . They've now switched to ], a term that is widely applied (usually pejoratively from the right wing press) to a few left wing UK politicians, particularly in the '80s and '90s. This is hardly even a contentious term: those to whom it was applied have proudly embraced it. Garageland disagrees and, as we saw at , only his version is the one true correct version. This is refuted by several other editors.


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


I don't understand the user always keep targeting me. I am more of a silence contributor. I had seen how the complainant had argue with other contributor in other talk page and after a while the complainant stay silent and not touching certain topic and instead keep making edit on articles related to ] or ]. Now, he is making a lot of edit on ]. ] (]) 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
As first stated, these claims were unsourced. That's not a problem to any reader familiar with UK politics (there is no credible challenge that "]" hasn't regularly been described as hard left). However policy wants sources, so I added sources to each one. Garageland has now seen fit to remove those too, with the utter nonsense claim, ''"Put these references on their Wiki profile pages first. If they're accepted there, then they can go here. Unlikely to be successful. Misplaced Pages should not be smearing current politicians."'' That is not how sourcing works on WP, even when Garageland disagrees. Any discussion at ] has just seen Garageland stone-walling.


== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
I'm suspecting that a topic ban might start to be considered (certainly a topic ban on undiscussed POV page moves, such as ), given what an ongoing and topic-focussed problem this is. Garageland certainly has no appreciation for collegial editing and consensus. ] (]) 09:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}
::I'm not engaged in edit-warring I'm trying to achieve a consensus. I'm not sure why there should be a topic ban for me when I have been trying to reach a compromise. Each attempt at this has been responded to with flat rejection. I don't know what it is that gives ] the power to respond to my request for compromise with a flat "no". Please read the Talk Page, to see his inflexible approach.


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ergzay}}
::On other pages my contributions HAVE achieved a consensus. For example on the Communist Party of Britain page it was finally agreed to compromise with Left-wing/Far-left as a compromise.
::: After you wore everyone else down with your intransigence and you were blocked for edit-warring. Do not mistake exhaustion for agreement. ] (]) 12:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::I asked that the reference for Jeremy Corbyn as hard left be removed because the source is a very partisan right-wing newspaper - hardly in keeping with Misplaced Pages's impartial reputation. I've also asked that the leader of the United Kingdom's opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, be removed from the Hard Left page as it is a smear on a high profile political figure. His Wiki profile page makes no reference to him being Hard left. But ] is acting as judge and jury on this and deciding that no change can be made.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::I have tried the compromise of leaving Ken Livingstone on (or 'Red Ken' as ] chooses to disrespectfully call him) because Ken Livingstone's page DOES list him as hard left. And then take the other names off. But again ] has acted as judge and jury and flatly rejected such a compromise with a "no".
# {{diff2|1270885082|18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Reverting for user specifying basically ] as their reasoning"
# {{diff2|1270881666|18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) I believe you have reverted this edit in error so I am adding it back. Rando tweet from a random organization? The Anti-defamation league is cited elsewhere in this article and this tweet was in the article previously. I simply copy pasted it from a previous edit. ADL is a trusted source in the perennial source list ]"
# {{diff2|1270878417|17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Removing misinformation"
# {{diff2|1270875037|17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
# {{diff2|1270724963|23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Revert, this is not the purpose of the short description"
# {{diff2|1270718517|22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Elon is not a multinational"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::Can somebody intervene and try to arbitrate? To leave some high profile names on the Hard left page (while Misplaced Pages does not describe Nigel Farage or other such figures as Hard right) is to smear those names. (] (]) 11:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC))
# {{diff2|1270879182|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small|(edit: corrected diff)}}


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


;Page: {{pagelinks|Nova Science Publishers}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|MichaelAdamSmith}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|680892598|21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 680892204 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|680891075|21:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 680890042 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|680888427|20:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 680887803 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|680887531|20:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)}} "In the cases of public domain material, NOVA always indicates the sources. You can request a book copy to find out."


Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|680891973|21:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"


] 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)
;Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Some kind of game is being played, SPA IP asking for lawyers on talk page. ] (]) 22:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
;<u>Comments:</u>
::@] So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. ] (]) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::]: {{tq|An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. ] (]) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. ] (]) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::]: {{tq|There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons}}. – ] (]) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. ] (]) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. ] (]) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
:The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. ] (]) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. ] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording followed by after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. ] (]) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::What is a CTOP? ] (]) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::A CTOP is a ]. ] (]) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages.}} If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. ] (]) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. ] (]) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
: Based on the comment in response to the notification for this discussion, {{tq|"I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it"}}, I was quite surprised to see that the editor didn't acquire an understanding of 3RR when in 2020. That's sometime ago granted, but additionally a lack of awareness of CTOP, when there is an edit notice at Musk's page regarding BLP policy, is highly suggestive of ]. This in addition to the 3RR warning that was ignored, followed by continuing to revert other editors, and eventually arguing that it must be because I am wrong. If there is an essay based on "Everyone else must be wrong because I'm always right" I'd very much like to read it. As for this report, I primarily wanted to nip the edit war in the bud which appears to have worked for now, given the talk page warning failed to achieve anything. I otherwise remain concerned about the general ] based indicators; disruptive editing, battleground attitude, and lack of willingness to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner. ] (]) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given that ''some'' of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that covers ''all'' edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with the ''letter'', but not the ''spirit'', of 3RR (In other words, another case of ])) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS. ] (]) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We are likely to see Ergzay at ANI at some point. But as I was thinking of asking for 1RR early today; I'm fine with that decision. ] (]) 00:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Good decision. I otherwise think a final warning for edit warring is appropriate, given the 3RR violation even excluding BLPREMOVE reverts (first 4 diffs to be specific). There's nothing else to drag out here given Ergzay intends to take a step back from the Musk article, and per above, there is always the ANI route for any future incidents. ] (]) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] My statement that you quoted there is because I'm a divisive person and people often don't like how I act on Misplaced Pages and the edits I make. People have dragged me to this place several times in the past over the years and I've always found it reasonably fair against people who are emotionally involved against dragging me down. That is why I said what I did. And as to the previous warning that you claim was me "not getting it", that was 3 reverts of the same material, and with a name 3RR the association is automatic. Edit: And I'll additionally add, I'm most certainly interested in building an accurate encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources. I'm still very happy to use sources that exist and they should be used whenever possible, but in this modern day and age of heavily politicized and biased media, editors more than ever need to have wide open eyes and use rational thinking. ] (]) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"''Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources''" See ]. ] (]) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::And ], while you're at it. ] (]) 19:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected one week; IP range blocked two weeks) ==
In addition to the obvious edit-warring, there's also COI here... ] (]) 21:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul Cézanne}}
Note that we had a similar situation with COI user on same article a couple of weeks ago. . ] (]) 23:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b}} indefinitely for sock puppetry.--] (]) 01:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Anna Politkovskaya}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Beyond My Ken}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{diff|oldid=1271008210|diff=1271008905|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1271008695|06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|1271008905|06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1271007344|06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1271006989|06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
#


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# {{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:'''
<!-- 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:


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

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

I anticipate that ] will try to excuse their behavior by invoking ] policy and argue that the 3RR restriction does not apply to them. This is not the case. The BLP exemption is for cases where the possibility of BLP violation is fairly unambiguous. Here half a dozen reliable sources, including books by scholars, have been provided to support the text under dispute. Beyond My Ken is just choosing to ignore them. Likewise, in the talk page discussion they stated that they will no longer discuss the matter but just revert others. This is unacceptable and BMK should know better.

Since the article has been protected, at this time a block is not necessary. Beyond My Ken does need to be warned however to ensure that this behavior does not resume once protection expires.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 00:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I should note that the 3RR page is pretty explicit about this: ''" What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."''. BMK has not heeded this advice.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 00:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

Actually looking at the situation in more depth, there's a bit more disruptive here. Immediately after violating 3RR with their 4th revert, Beyond My Ken ran to the Requests for Protection page and asked to have his preferred version protected . This shows that the user is not interested in resolving the dispute but rather in "]". It's also a pretty transparent attempt at ]ing the rules.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 00:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:Reverting BLP violations is an absolute defense against edit warring. VM and another editor are attempting to add information connecting Vladimir Putin to a murder, because the murder occurred on Putin's birthday, and the murdered woman was a political opponent of Putin. The evidence they present '''''does not show any causal connection between them''''', it merely shows that some people '''''suspect''''' that there may be a connection, or that conspiracy theorist '''''believe''''' there is be a connection. It is thus unsourced innuendo about a living person, and therefore completely disallowed by BLP policy.{{parabr}}I have explained this numerous times to them on the ], until I got tired of repeating myself, but they seem not to understand the difference between '''''sourcing the existence of the suspicions''''', which they have done more than adequately, and '''''sourcing the actual connection between Putin and the murder'''''. Without a source for '''''an actual connection''''', the material is in direct violation of BLP and may be removed from the article on sight by any editor -- indeed, it is the duty of a conscientious editor to do so.{{parabr}}I'd also like to note that page protection was granted by Callanec, an Oversighter and Arbitration clerk, who surely must be familiar with BLP policy. It was not my "preferred version" that was protected, it was the version without the blatant BLP violation. ] (]) 01:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
::You are not "defending against edit warring". You ARE edit warring. You are the only person to break 3RR on this article.
::There is no "unsourced innuendo". The text says exactly what more than a dozen sources say. We could quote DIRECTLY from reliable secondary sources and it would be exactly the same thing. You are just using ] as a bullshit excuse. And yes, it was, "your version" which you tried to get protected. Which evidences bad faith.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 01:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:::Please read more carefully. I did not say I was "defending against edit warring", I said exactly what I said to you on the article talk page, that edits which remove BLP violations are immune from 3RR, so that is an "absolute defense against edit warring". What I was defending the article from was unequivocal BLP violations by you and the other editor. Since BLP-violation-removing edits are immune from 3RR, I cannot, by definition, have been "edit warring". As for innuendo, the mention of Putin's birthday in relation to the murder most certainly '''''is''''' innuendo, as it implies some connection between them - or else why mention it at all. I am sorry that you cannot, or do not want to, understand this, but it is absolutely so, per Drmies' argument regarding Desmond Tutu on the talk page. That's all I will say here, since this is not the place for the continuation of talk page disputes. ] (]) 03:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
::::There was no "unequivocal BLP violations" except in your mind. Over half a dozen sources were presented to support the text. The policy explicitly states: ''" What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."'' You did not choose to pursue that option but instead engaged in edit warring. The mention of Putin's birthday is made in pretty much. Every. Single. Source. On. The. Subject. For you to demand that we ignore what sources say is about as twisted, backwards-ass, reading of ] as one could possibly come up with. For you to use that to excuse your edit warring and breaking 3RR merits at the very least a stern warning.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 03:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

*I don't want to see anyone blocked, and I haven't looked at the history of who reverted who when and how many times. But I do have to say that I believe that the basic statement that "Mrs. X was murdered on Putin's birthday", even if expanded to "Many sources note that Mrs. X was murdered on Putin's birthday", is a BLP violation since it asks the reader to speculate on what the meaning of that possible coincidence might be. I am more interested in an admin acquainted with the BLP confirming this fact (that innuendo like this is a BLP violation) than I am in anyone getting blocked. The talk page section is a bit long by now, but you can skip the parts that I didn't write, haha. (I didn't come up with Desmond Tutu--another editor did that and actually stuck it in the article, as a very POINTy point.) Thanks, ] (]) 03:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

* my edit on this page. As should be clear from the text, authors of every book claim about '''an actual connection and explain why the date of murder was important''. However, these sources served only to justify inclusion of the fact noted as extremely important in a vast majority of RS on the subject. There is no way the reverts by BMK can be justified as removal of poorly sourced materials per BLP rules. The books are written by ] who are experts on the history of assassinations in Russia, among other things. Unless BMK admits that he did it wrong (including gaming the system and refusal to talk on article talk page after loosing the argument), he is going to repeat the same on other similar occasions in a future. ] (]) 03:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:*Gentlemen, there will be no fighting in the war room. Marek, My very best wishes, it seems to be obvious that there is edit warring here. (The claim that BMK is gaming the system by asking for protection is silly--if BMK is right that this is a BLP violation, ''they are doing the right thing''.) The only thing, then, that matters is whether BMK can reasonably argue that he can invoke BLP. I think that he can, and I am speaking through my administrative mouth piece. It's for that reason that I earlier removed the claim from the article, an edit reverted by, well, someone. Why this is a BLP violation, I have explained this a few times already. You can disagree, of course, but what matters here is whether an uninvolved admin (who's not being paid by the Kremlin, of course) thinks that BMK ''reasonably'' invoked the BLP. Thank you, ] (]) 03:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Headtransplant}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|680920622|01:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)}} "see talk"
# {{diff2|680921164|01:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|680921360|01:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|680921514|01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)}} "hi, give me some time to edit this page please. per {{t|underconstruction}} thanks!"
# {{diff2|680921680|02:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)}} "hi, give me some time to edit this page please. per {{t|underconstruction}} thanks!"
# {{diff2|680921841|02:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)}} "please see your talk page, thank you. Undid revision 680921743 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|680922149|02:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=680922249|diff=680923410|label=Consecutive edits made from 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) to 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|680923378|02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|680923410|02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|680923701|02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)}} "please give me time to edit the page, per {{t|underconstruction}} thank you."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Blatant violation of 3RR even after being warned. Makes changes without consensus. ] <small>(])</small> 02:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:I am attempting to ] overhaul the page, and despite <nowiki>{{underconstruction}}</nowiki> template, I continue to be reverted.
:If I was an established editor on wikipedia, this would never happen. But since my user name and talk page is new, I cannot edit this page without constant reversion.
:The irony is this edit dispute is on the Article Rescue Squadron page, and this edit war behavior by editors is the reason why the Article Rescue Squadron exists in the first place. ] (]) 02:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

::It should be noted that the Headtransplant account's only other editing history consists of creating an unsourced stub article, reading in full "The Hypomanic Edge is a book by John D. Gartner.", and in adding a 'see also' Wikilink to the 'article'. This is clearly someone who doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages works, and shouldn't be messing around with Rescue Squadron instruction pages. ] (]) 02:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

::And even after being brought to this notice board, the edit-warring continues: If this isn't trolling, it is a competence issue... ] (]) 02:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

:::Good point, Andy. The reported user should be indeffed per ]. --] <small>(])</small> 02:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
::::I attempted a dialogue numerous times with these editors, asking them repeatedly to just give me an hour to edit the article, per ]. See the edit history of the page.
::::We are talking about an obscure policy page.
::::If I was an established editor with numerous edits here, this never would have happened.
::::In response to me arguing against this 3RR, ] escalated this disagreement by ] my edits, and putting up my template for deletion: ].
::::] is now calling for me to be indefinitely blocked.
::::# No civil dialogue,
::::# a steadfast refusal to give me just an hour to edit a page,
::::# edit warring,
::::# threats,
::::# ], and now
::::# calls for me to be banned indefinitely.
::::] (]) 03:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::The claim of a 'dialog' is demonstrably false - see the lack of it in Headtransplant's editing history. What we have here is a contributor who refuses to comply with a simple request to get prior consensus before making fundamental changes to an instruction page. ] (]) 03:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::(and see also the related thread below 'User:JJMC89 reported by User:SuperCarnivore591') ] (]) 03:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Just because you know the passive aggressive way to edit war, does not make your behavior any less justifiable.
:::::::You started this Andy. A minor edit war, and now you are calling for me to be blocked indefinitely.
:::::::] (]) 03:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} {{U|Headtransplant}}, ] does not apply after editors have reverted your edits. We certainly encourage you to be bold in introducing changes to benefit the wiki, but when there's disagreement about whether they actually benefit the wiki, you need to follow the ] cycle and talk out the problems with editors ''before'' continuing your changes. The fact that the page was "under construction" doesn't give you the right to unilaterally introduce changes to a wikiproject's main operating procedures. ] is needed for such large changes ''before'' you carry them out, but especially when someone opposes the change. Can you see where you went wrong here, and do you have a plan on how to act in this situation going forward? ~ <b>]</b><sup>]</sup> 03:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:Rob: I see that you also supported my template for deletion.
:]
:Again, underneath the quoting of policy is extremely passive aggressive behavior.
:You will aggressively support the deletion of a template that was barely made. There is policy about this too. You all never gave me a chance to create what I wanted to create.
:Of course, Rob, you will call my behavior wrong, but will you ignore the 3RR violations of the editor below?
:] applies. I attempted to tell this to ] and he was adment about not even giving me an hour of time to edit the article.
:I can quote policy too, What about ], ] or ]?
:And of course, you ignore ].
:I am not going to get in a protracted policy argument with you.
:Your like an aggressive pastor, you know the Bible like the back of your hand, and you selectively call sinners to repentance with your amazing ability to quote scripture, but that doesn't make the pastor any less passive aggressive.
:] (]) 03:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
::'Newbie'? Yeah, right... ] (]) 03:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:::Would you like to discuss ] and ] now Andy?
:::Also, I have had over 200,000 edits to wikis. Mostly to wikia.
:::I host my own 20 wikis.
:::What about ]? Again, you created this edit war. You refuse to compromise, you call for my indefinite ban, you delete my comments on your talk page. Multiple violations of ] and ]. ] (]) 04:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
::Ok. I will bite. Lets play the policy game:
:::] and ]:
::::Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution.
:::Andy violated ].
::]
::: By putting up my template for deletion, ] and Andy violated ]. Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages.
::] (]) 03:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

::::"Andy violated ]"! This is getting more comical by the minute. I violate policy by asking Headtransplant to discuss changes before making them... ] (]) 04:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

:] started this edit war. Here is my comment on his talk page, and ]'s response:
::]: "give me a little bit of time to edit ] please. thank you. 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)"
::]: "No. Leave it alone - you clearly don't have a clue what you are doing. find out how Misplaced Pages works first, and then ''suggest improvements on the talk page''." 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:] (]) 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:] (]) 04:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
::As been amply demonstrated, you don't have a clue what you are doing - or are under the impression that rules only apply to other people. I suggested you discuss changes - you didn't. And now you are being held accountable for your refusal. Stop whinging like a four-year-old and accept responsibility for your behaviour. Or toddle off back to your personal Wiki's where you can safely be ignored... ] (]) 04:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

:] started this edit war. Here is my comment on his talk page, and ]'s response:
::]: "give me a little bit of time to edit ] please. thank you. ] (]) 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)"
::]: No. Leave it alone - you clearly don't have a clue what you are doing. find out how Misplaced Pages works first, and then ''suggest improvements on the talk page''. ] (]) 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:] (]) 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. This is now closed.--] (]) 04:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|JJMC89}}

<!-- 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. -->



<!-- 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 -->


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

This also appears to be a misuse of rollback as well, as the other editor's edits aren't clearly vandalism. ] (]) 02:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC) -->
:Stale report, JJMC stopped reverting 40 minutes ago, which is a considerable amount of time. --] <small>(])</small> 02:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
::Edit warring is still edit warring. Five reverts, all within 24 hours, a clear breach of ]. ] (]) 02:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:::I actually agree with that. I was gonna warn but they seem to have stopped. An administrator still needs to review this behavior, though. --] <small>(])</small> 02:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

:::For the context, see 'User:Headtransplant reported by User:ToonLucas22' above - we have a new account messing around with an instruction page - and if it isn't simple trolling, it is a competence issue. Either way, removing instructions from the page is entirely inappropriate, and if reverting it isn't an exception under WP:3RR, it should be. There is far too much potential for mischief otherwise. ] (]) 02:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
::::I see.
::::AndyTheGrump and ToonLucas22 support SuperCarnivore591 violating 3RR but not me.
::::Again, I have attempted to boldly edit the article, an obscure policy article that instructions have not been edited in months, maybe years, using the under construction template
::::In response, AndyTheGrump, ToonLucas22, SuperCarnivore591 blatantly ignore the under construction template, even when I ask for one hour to edit an article, template me several times on my talk page, report me to 3RR, put my template for deletion, and delete my talk page comments calling them "worthless".
::::Again, ] escalated this disagreement by ] my edits, and putting up my template for deletion. ]
::::] (]) 03:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::What are you talking about? "AndyTheGrump and ToonLucas22 support SuperCarnivore591 violating 3RR but not me." Dude, I haven't even edited the article, ''not once''. So how could you say that I'm violating 3RR, and that I'm "blatantly ignor the under construction template" on an article I haven't even touched? ] (]) 03:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

:::::Like I said above, if this isn't trolling, it is a competence issue - Headtransplant repeatedly claims to be 'boldly' editing, but either hasn't read ], has read it but doesn't understand it, or understands it, but refuses to comply with the instruction to discuss after being reverted. And then spams multiple pages with personal attacks. ] (]) 03:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
::::::And your solution ] is to indefinetly block someone you get into a minor edit war with.
::::::You selectively support the enforcement of 3RR. "Block me" you scream, but don't block SuperCarnivore591.
::::::You started this edit war. I repeatedly ask you to give me some time. I was in the middle of a major edit to the page, and you blatantly refused to give me time.
::::::Yes, I understand the policy.
::::::I also understand that editors like yourself use the policy like a club through passive aggressive behavior.
::::::You started this edit war Andy.
::::::This could have been avoided by you simply civilly discussing my changes. ] (]) 03:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Dude, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling now, but I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no valid reason to block me as I haven't been edit warring; I haven't even edited the article once. ] (]) 03:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Hey andy, is calling someone's edits "trolling" a personal attack?
::::::::Is calling someones edits "worthless" and deleting them all, a personal attack? ] (]) 03:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Andy, is calling someone a troll exempt from ]? ] (]) 04:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. Closed.--] (]) 04:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours--for Headtransplant) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|User:Headtransplant}}

<!-- 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. -->

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

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
:] started this edit war. Here is my comment on his talk page, and ]'s response:
::]: "give me a little bit of time to edit ] please. thank you. ] (]) 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)"
::]: "No. Leave it alone - you clearly don't have a clue what you are doing. find out how Misplaced Pages works first, and then ''suggest improvements on the talk page''". ] (]) 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
;<u>Comments:</u>
Looking at the history of this page, some editors have been blocked for 3RR even when they had "only" 3 reversions. Andy started this edit war.
* The second revision he called me edits "vandalism".
* The last revision is in which Andy calls me a "troll". ] (]) 04:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

]. ] (]) 04:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:*{{U|AndyTheGrump}}, I don't really think that AN3 is the right place for one-liners, and that comment of yours isn't even a complete sentence, for crying out loud. However, it is spot on. The editor was clearly edit warring and displaying a pretty massive amount of incompetence, besides personal attacks (on ]) and just generally a bad vibe. I won't block indefinitely for CIR at this time. ] (]) 04:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Scarsdale diet}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Alexbrn}}

<!-- 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pritikin_Diet&oldid=646917490

# 03:56, 14 September 2015‎ My edit. Two conflicting cites, one of higher quality. Dumped one, explained why. Research: Undoubtedly a brief diet fad -brief because it's stringent - but "fad diet" is little supported overall, and certainly not by these cites.)
# 05:33, 14 September 2015 AB's revert. Does not, to my thinking explain, beyond the obvious that he thinks the other version ''good''. (Reverted to revision 646917490 by 73.164.140.158 (talk): Rv. to good. (TW))
# 06:15, 14 September 2015‎ So, I hit the ball back across the net, pointing out... Undid revision 680942659 Follow BRD
# 06:26, 14 September 2015 For BRD, I did the R - now you do the D

As you'll note above, I included actual discussion with each edit, but just to be sure, I add the following on the talk page:


As you can see, the version reverted to had two very different assessments, one a mention in an introductory level diet text, and one an actual study. The study was largely positive on serious health gains, while the text emphasized...farting. Fails NPOV just on the face of it.
When you add in the real question of equivocation -not all sources use "fad diet" to ]'s preferred meaning of "fad diet"- it really is up to him to justify this reversion, not just assert the old version was good. ] (]) 06:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Does Alexbrn discuss this? Well, later, but first, there are priorities!

(cur | prev) 06:27, 14 September 2015‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,351 bytes) (+1,457)‎ . . (Warning: Edit warring on Pritikin Diet. (TW)) (undo | thank)

...then the "discussion."

:The source you deleted is a good one. Some of the other sourcing in this article is however dodgy. May get a chance to look in detail later. ] (]) 06:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The article we were working on is a ''short one''. There is only one other source, aside from the bio/publishing details, which rather implies...

::There is ''one'' other source, aside from biographical details. How do you get "some" out of "one?" That strongly suggests that you don't need to "look in detail later", you need to look for the first time, now, before you simply do knee-jerk reverts. ] (]) 07:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Do I need to notify him separately, seeing as he's already dropped a warning on my talk page?

] (]) 08:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:PS: This isn't happening in a vacuum will show a similar pattern, this time tag-teamed, but with the same substitution of papering of talk-pages with warnings for actual discussion. ] (]) 08:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}}.--] (]) 12:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:i=
Am wondering if you could explain how something written up within a short time of occurrence could be "''stale?''" ] (]) 03:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|X-Men: Apocalypse}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hotwiki}}

<!-- 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. -->



<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

This user has been blocked for edit warring on X-Men articles before, . I started a discussion on the talk page, asking him to get consensus for his changes, but instead he kept reverting, now it's a total of five times. ] (]) 20:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. Although the editor still violated ], they reverted only four times, not five. Two of the listed diffs are consecutive edits and count as one revert.--] (]) 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Página/12}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Liberté&justice}}
<!-- 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. -->
<!-- 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: 2 warnings:

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

<u>Comments:</u> Clear ] that arbitrarily reverts editions referenced in a single article without providing any source to his changes, although the current version has appropriate references.''']''' - <small>''']'''</small> 01:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)<br />

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

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Kevin Folta}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Jerodlycett}}

<!-- 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. -->

<!-- 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:
The last 2 reverts occurred in spite of and after I opened a discussion of two edits and no response to the discussion

<u>Comments:</u>
user has an undated statement on his talk page, that he is "currently experiencing mental health issues". I found no evidence that this was put up "recently", so I feel this sends an odd message. he should not editwar when having mental health issues, or take off the sign, if he is okay. the page is under attack by several tendentious editors, so action is needed.<br />
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


=== Response by Jerod ===
First, {{oldid|Talk:Kevin Folta|680897494}} shows I have been trying to have any and all changes discussed before Wuerzele even came across the page. I asked at {{oldid|Kevin Folta|680983166}} that any removal of cited material be discussed at the talk page. As per the warning, {{oldid|User talk:Jerodlycett|681074403}} Wuerzele placed it nearly an hour after my last edit {{oldid|Kevin Folta|681069733}}

For the discussion, I {{oldid|Talk:Kevin Folta|681039893}} replied, and felt there was no need to continue arguing once I saw the emotions in play with Wuerzele and Seren. After Wuerzele was warned {{oldid|User talk:Wuerzele|681052515}} they made at least two reversions: {{Diff|Kevin Folta|next|681068538}} and {{Diff|Kevin Folta|next|681068692}}. I've included a list of reversions below. I'm not the only editor that had to revert stuff Wuerzele did. While one of us should have reported them we kept reverting, ]ing the 3RR in an attempt to keep the article neutral. Wuerzele did make some constructive edits too. ] (]) 01:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

==== Reverts by Wuerzele ====
# {{Diff|Kevin Folta|next|680963522}}
# {{Diff|Kevin Folta|next|680968584}}
# {{Diff|Kevin Folta|next|681026453}}
# {{Diff|Kevin Folta|next|681028074}}
# {{Diff|Kevin Folta|next|681028203}}
# {{Diff|Kevin Folta|next|681068538}}
# {{Diff|Kevin Folta|next|681068692}}

Latest revision as of 19:52, 22 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Read the bright read box at WP:3RR (. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Objective3000 So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. Ergzay (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. Ergzay (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. Ergzay (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:3RR: There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. – RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. Ergzay (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
    The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. Ergzay (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording "LMAO, this is as trustworthy as Fox News" followed by "cannot see the pertinence of this" after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. Ergzay (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    What is a CTOP? Ergzay (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    A CTOP is a WP:CTOP. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. Ergzay (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Based on the comment in response to the notification for this discussion, "I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it", I was quite surprised to see that the editor didn't acquire an understanding of 3RR when previously warned for edit warring in 2020. That's sometime ago granted, but additionally a lack of awareness of CTOP, when there is an edit notice at Musk's page regarding BLP policy, is highly suggestive of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. This in addition to the 3RR warning that was ignored, followed by continuing to revert other editors, and eventually arguing that it must be because I am wrong. If there is an essay based on "Everyone else must be wrong because I'm always right" I'd very much like to read it. As for this report, I primarily wanted to nip the edit war in the bud which appears to have worked for now, given the talk page warning failed to achieve anything. I otherwise remain concerned about the general WP:NOTHERE based indicators; disruptive editing, battleground attitude, and lack of willingness to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner. CNC (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given that some of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that covers all edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with the letter, but not the spirit, of 3RR (In other words, another case of why we can't have nice things)) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    We are likely to see Ergzay at ANI at some point. But as I was thinking of asking for 1RR early today; I'm fine with that decision. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Good decision. I otherwise think a final warning for edit warring is appropriate, given the 3RR violation even excluding BLPREMOVE reverts (first 4 diffs to be specific). There's nothing else to drag out here given Ergzay intends to take a step back from the Musk article, and per above, there is always the ANI route for any future incidents. CNC (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @CommunityNotesContributor My statement that you quoted there is because I'm a divisive person and people often don't like how I act on Misplaced Pages and the edits I make. People have dragged me to this place several times in the past over the years and I've always found it reasonably fair against people who are emotionally involved against dragging me down. That is why I said what I did. And as to the previous warning that you claim was me "not getting it", that was 3 reverts of the same material, and with a name 3RR the association is automatic. Edit: And I'll additionally add, I'm most certainly interested in building an accurate encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources. I'm still very happy to use sources that exist and they should be used whenever possible, but in this modern day and age of heavily politicized and biased media, editors more than ever need to have wide open eyes and use rational thinking. Ergzay (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources" See WP:VNT. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    And WP:KNOW, while you're at it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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