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 00:31, 8 December 2017 view sourceUtsill (talk | contribs)222 edits →User:PeterTheFourth reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Withdrawn): r← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:26, 22 January 2025 view source Horse Eye's Back (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users52,258 edits →User:Ergzay reported by User:CommunityNotesContributor (Result: 1RR imposed on article) 
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 = 356 |counter = 491
|algo = old(36h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f |key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|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=" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hwasong-15}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of religious slurs}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Chernobog95}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''

'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1270068423|19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
# 12/2
# {{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.)"
# 12/2
# {{diff2|1270039369|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
# 12/2
# "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"."
# 12/2
# # "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1270041824|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' by ], seems to be accusing ] of inserting misleading information and lying.


All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Is attempting to revert several edits made by numerous users in an attempt to defend a citation he or she has inserted, often times providing harassment or aggression in his or her edit summaries. When confronted about these edits, he or she becomes notabilty hostile, accusing these users and previous ones of vandalizing, censoring, or lying. I don't know why exactly this user is so defensive of this citation or what exactly stirred up this behavior of his or hers, but what is known is that he or she is hell-bent on protecting this citation. This user has previously, been reported before under the same circumstances a little over a month ago , which ended up getting him/herself blocked for 1 week . There is some pattern with this user tending to revert a number of pages of North Korean-related topics, which should also be noted. ] (]) 18:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
:Here's another revert I just caught him/her making. ] (]) 19:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
: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: No violation) ==
::I just got a message about this in my message box, afterwards I found this
. ] (]) 19:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Battle of Jamrud}}
:::Here’s a third one, I’m starting to think this user may be resorting to do anything he/she can just to protect this source . ] (]) 19:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Noorullah21}}
::::He or she did it once more, this time ] caught him or her reverting their edits back . ] (]) 19:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:::::I’m also noticing that Chernobog95 is beginning to combine the source with others on the page as though they are suggesting they are falsely related. ] (]) 19:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*I didn’t realize that Chernobog95 was reported for edit warring until now. I would’ve done it personally, but I appreciate the reporting ahead of time, thanks SamaranEmerald. Anyways, here’s one of the reverts Chernobog95 just made: ] (]) 20:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270170387|07:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270112351 by ] (]): No it hasn't, they haven't even given their conclusion, and you again edited the page to revert it.."
# {{diff2|1270112351|00:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270108346 by ] (]): No he doesn't, please take this to the talk page now to be more clear."
# {{diff2|1270108346|23:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270099439 by Noorullah21: "where they too were saved by the arrival of substantial reinforcements.
Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving
the Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimed
the victory and was given a hero’s welcome. For decades after, this pyrrhic
victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39" -Lee, (calls it a phyrric Afghan victory), and Hussain isn't on google scholars."


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:Here’s yet another revert I’ve noticed, this time directed to an anonymous IP, claiming it was “vandalism”: ] (]) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270110872|23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
# {{diff2|1270113286|00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
# {{diff2|1270205537|12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
::He or she is still continuing to show bad faith and is continuing to mock the users who revert his/her edits, here’s yet another link . ] (]) 21:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1269985195|10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
# {{diff2|1270115828|00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270117437|00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270123153|01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270124950|01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270128846|01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270130305|02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270131478|02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270133699|02:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:::And here’s another two reverts, both within four minutes of each other, Chernobog95 is starting to use the words users say against them: , ] (]) 21:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


This is not the first time they are edit warring and breaking 3RR, they were previously warned by an admin . There seems to be a habit of them continuously misinterpreting the sources and pushing certain PoVs. They have opted for 3O by themselves but disagreed with the opinion given. ] 12:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I found yet another two reverts made by this user, , . ] (]) 00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


:Im not that involved(haven’t reverted anybody, just made a comment on the talk page). As a word of advice because so many people seem to forget this fact, when your adding disputed content, ONUS is on you to attain consensus. Which hasn’t happened here.
:::::And here’s yet another one , it seems this user has crossed the point of no return well too long ago. ] (]) 01:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
:“The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”


::::::Here is another revert , if I’ve counted the number of reverts above correctly, this should be the 17th time he/she has reverted on the provided page (or 17RR), like I said, this person is very persistent. ] (]) 05:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


:It seems that you yourself were also edit warring, except your the one who’s adding disputed content so per ONUS, you were never supposed to revert him to begin with. You need to wait until talk page discussions conclude and gain consensus. ] (]) 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I should also add that if you look at Chernobog95’s ], it shows signs of ], most notably the rules of treating articles as battlegrounds (via his or her hostile behavior shown above) and virtually no interest in working collaboratively. ] (]) 17:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
::A. The instance you pointed out was an administrator warning me for one revert on the History of India page. (Talking to Indo-Greek, the person who reported and I had a dispute with here..)
::B. When the individual hasn't concluded their ], you immediately reverted the page again saying they did. There's still a very open discussion with the user... (They've even edited the page most recently!.. I'd also like to remind you ] is non binding even when the opinion is given, meaning whether they say either or is in the right.. the dispute can still continue until a ] can be made. The burden of proof is on you for ] (you also kept readding a non ] source.. (Farrukh Hussain). I pointed out ] as a solution, and you keep reverting the page far before they've given their opinion. Lee... (this is now bringing the argument from the talk page here..) calls it a phyrric victory. ] (]) 16:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I also told said where per ], it's per them to seek Consensus. ] (]) 16:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I reverted my edit as of now per the edit summary. (the last edit prior to that is the person working on our ]. ] (]) 16:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This seems like ], but anyways. The admin had warned you for the same edit warring issue, not 1RR. You had asked for 3O which an editor eventually gave one quoting: {{tq|I found a huge contradiction in your quote. You said "Nothing here calls the battle a Sikh victory," but the quote literally says "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans"}} which was later discarded by you which is fine, but if other editors accusing you for overlooking the source and found you contradicting yourself then you should have been more cautious rather than outrightly reverting my changes. ] 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Have you not read the rest of the discussion..? the ] is being discussed.
::::You've completely ignored this.
::::
::::
::::
::::
::::Scroll down! (on the talk page). ] (]) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I also didn't violate the 3 revert rule. I didn't revert 4 times, I reverted 3 times. Although of course, this seems to be more inclined toward edit warring, which both of us did.
:::::@] has just jumped into the discussion (and they seem to be more in favor of my argument) -- per their most recent talk page msg on the battle of jamrud, which shows a growing consensus on my side? .. Nonetheless, I still find this report baseless. ] (]) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::'''Both of us did''' No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through ], don't confuse it with ]. I also think that Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to? The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of ]. ] 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::What?
:::::::"No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR" -- Yes, I'm talking about myself.. I reverted 3 times, to break the 3rr rule, you have to revert more than three times (i.e 4 times) "An editor must not perform '''more than three reverts''' on a single page" -- I also self reverted per the former.
:::::::"Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to?" -- He responded on the talk page (of the page), he responded here, and he also re-reverted the page.
:::::::'''"The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT."''' - Are you insinuating @] is a Meatpuppet? Because you've drawn effectively numerous flanks into the air on what this report is really about.
:::::::A. In your edit summary you said the Third opinion was concluded.. (it wasn't.)
:::::::B. You report here for 3rr (when 3rr wasn't violated, and I'm assuming this is more inclined toward edit war..?)
:::::::C. You then throw around Meatpuppet accusations?
:::::::I'm sorry but there's no way this discussion is remaining civil anymore. Did you even read the Meatpuppet page? '''"The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Misplaced Pages:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."'''
:::::::Flinging around accusations of Meatpuppetry clearly breaches ]. ] (]) 20:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You also did revert it three times.. Shown here:
:::::::: (First time)
:::::::: (Second time)
:::::::: (Third Time) ] (]) 20:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::You are again falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR. You do realise that the first revert was more than 24 hours prior than the other two? I don't have much to say here it's quite self explanatory, while this is not the same case with you, where 3RR has been violated in the span of 24 hours. ] 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm not accusing you of breaking 3RR, I'm saying you reverted three times. To break 3RR it has to be four reverts. (you have to revert more than three times). Your reverts were also in a 24 hour period. (Or just shy of it?)
::::::::::I didn't revert four times to break 3RR. Where are the diffs of me reverting you four times? ] (]) 21:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent|10}}{{AN3|noex}} As noted in the ''loooong'' discussion above, which again proves that using the talk page is a much preferable alternative to taking it over here. Also, this is getting a bit stale. ] (]) 12:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
*Is anyone going to respond? ] (]) 02:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b}} – 2 weeks. Long-term edit warring at ] and personal attacks against others, as seen by his recent comments at ]. "You can lie or admit you people made mistake and apologize for your lack of effort of checking for facts." The user was by ] for edit warring on a different article about North Korea. In a previous dispute , but got nowhere. The user's knowledge of English doesn't equip him well to deal with subtleties and his arguments are often hard to understand. ] (]) 04:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Next Danish general election }} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Withdrawn) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Thomediter}}

;Page: {{pagelinks|Template:2017 AFC standings}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|2.87.53.178}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|813443851|19:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|813437108|18:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|813435764|18:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|813434561|18:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|813436069|18:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
*IP refuses to discuss.

;<u>Comments:</u>

IP continues to edit war their preferred version of an NFL ranking against WikiProject NFL's procedures. ] <span style="background-color:#368ec9; color:black; font-family:Papyrus">(Jalen D. Folf)</span> (]&nbsp;&bull;&#32;]) 19:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
*{{withdrawn}} Anon has been quiet since the incident. ] <span style="background-color:#368ec9; color:black; font-family:Papyrus">(Jalen D. Folf)</span> (]&nbsp;&bull;&#32;]) 16:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Roy Moore}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Signedzzz}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''


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


Editor was and that one more revert would result in them being reported for breaching 3RR. They made the fourth revert immediately after responding to the warning.
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*], I am going to revert your last (fourth) revert; you are indeed edit warring and you're not giving any reasons for your edits, never mind for your ongoing reverts. If you revert one more time you will be blocked. Please don't let it get that far. Seek the talk page. ] (]) 17:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{subst:void|OPTIONAL: User:Signedzzz reverted a consensus edit of "dated older teenagers" by removing "older". I reverted his edit and left a message on his talk page to please not revert without discussing on the talk page, because a consensus had been reached to use "dated older teenagers". (See [[Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 5#"Sexual Advances" should not be used for asking for a date BLP). He then reverted it two more times, and each time I reverted, asking him again on his talk page to please discuss in Talk:Roy Moore. His last revert had the edit comment "fuck off". Since I was warned of 1RR, I reverted my last revert, leaving the text as the non-consensus version Signedzz wants.}}
::{{AN3|d}} per above and reported editor's inactivity. ] (]) 22:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
:After the first diff, with the summary "unclear", the filer reverted claiming consensus, although there was no consensus for using the word. So I repeated the edit with a better explanation " "older" is unclear (and unsourced), useful only as WEASEL". This edit was not ideal, arguably, however it was not a 1RR violation. The filer, on the other hand, did in fact violate 1RR: + ] (]) 20:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
::Nothing to see here. There was no 1RR violation by either party. ] removed the word "older" twice but the edits were separated by more than 24 hours. The nominator self-reverted his second edit. The only outcome I can see would be to remind ] to be more ]. ] (]) 20:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
:::Actually, he removed the text three times. The first was on Dec 1. I reverted it and asked him on his talk page to please discuss in talk, because there was a consensus to use "older" rather than "above the age of consent". (See the archive, linked above.) Then he reverted on 2 Dec. I reverted again, on 3 Dec. Then he reverted again, on 3 Dec, and I reverted again, again asking him to please discuss in talk before making changes. He then erased my request on his talk page with the note "fuck you". If this is acceptable behavior, then I will stop editing on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
::::But there were more than 24 hours between each time he made the change so it doesn't violate 1RR. I agree that he should be more civil as I said, but it is actually you who would have violated 1RR had you not self-reverted. ] (]) 21:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::Also but, I never made any edit on the page on December 1, and in total I removed the word twice, not three times. Are you positive you want to dispute that, ]?
:::::: The article is subject to sanctions so it is ONE revert, not three, in any 24-hour period. 1RR, not 3RR. You don't seem to understand this. You made two edits, and only saved yourself by self-reverting.
::::::] only reverted once in any 24 hour period. Do you understand? 04:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <br />
::::::Ask the admins. What is this? ] (]) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GiggaHigga127}}
:::::::What do you think it is? ] (]) 22:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I am not going to participate is this childish back and forth. Let the admins decide. I'm done commenting on this. The admins will decide what to do. I would ask you to please be more civil in your dealings with other editors. ] (]) 22:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Great, I hope you enjoyed your "childish back and forth". ] (]) 22:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
{{od}} I’d just like to mention that this article is subject to more than a 1RR restriction: “All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).”] (]) 15:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
*'''Comment''' as an involved editor: IMO Signedzzz did not violate 1RR. I have advised Txantimedia to withdraw this report, but he prefers to let it run its course. It is also true that Signedzzz twice removed a word which was in the article as a result of talk page discussion, and removed it the second time even as his first removal was being challenged on the talk page. This may have been a violation of the consensus requirement (personally I think it is improper to insert one's own preferred version into the article in the middle of an active talk page discussion, regardless of whether DS apply to that article or not) but I don't know if violations of the consensus requirement are handled at this Edit Warring board. --] (]) 16:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
::On the advice of MelanieN and Lard Almighty, I am withdrawing this complaint. I sincerely feel that his actions were a violation, and his incivility was inexcusable, but apparently there's nothing that can be done about that. ] (]) 19:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
:::'''Result:''' Marked as withdrawn, due to the submitter's comment above. ] (]) 22:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Meghan Markle}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Surtsicna}}


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# 22:01, 4 December 2017
# 21:03, 4 December 2017 (undid
# 16:24, 4 December 2017
# 15:57, 4 December 2017 (undid )
# 15:50, 4 December 2017 (undid )
# 13:47, 4 December 2017 (undid )


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Various discussions are being held on the talk page for disputed content.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
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)
] has become a little trigger-happy and forgotten the 3RR. I have not included any reverts of violations of BLP policy. ] (]) 00:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. ] (]) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:It is difficult to describe my surprise at this report, but the extent of it will be clear to anyone who takes a look at the diffs or the article history. For example, under #2 it is plain and obvious that it was who reworded the lead sentence, and is obviously BLP-sensitive (and I backed down despite the claim that they are life partners, i.e. living together, being entirely unsourced).<br>What should be noted, however, is that a) I was warned about supposedly breaking the 3RR a minute before being reported, b) all the edits (except for those marked as orthography and spelling) are the result of achieving and changing consensus at ], c) Firebrace has not taken any part in that discussion on the talk page.<br>I have had no interaction with Firebrace before, which led me to her/his user page and the diffs linked there; and then it became clear. ] (]) 00:37, 5 December 2017 (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 24h) ==
::Ok, a few points:
::*Harry and Meghan are partners; the "partner" attribute did not violate BLP policy, it simply went against one of the infobox guidelines (which is not a policy).
::*When submitting this report, I was instructed to "Warn the user if you have not already done so". In any case, you had already been asked on your talk page to stop edit warring and discuss on the article talk page.
::*There is no exemption under 3RR policy for enforcing talk page consensus (if indeed there is a consensus).
::*I made on the talk page and have refrained from getting involved in the other petty and tedious arguments.
::] (]) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:::I have not been warned by anyone to "stop edit warring". That much is, pardon my bluntness, a blatant lie. Had you thought otherwise, you would not have left an actual warning on my talk page a minute before submitting the report.<br>The point of 3RR is not to point fingers in the hopes of seeing a random user reprimanded. The point is to prevent or stop edit-warring. There is no edit-warring when the edits represent the result of a talk page consensus. ] (]) 01:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
::::I see no talk page discussion about #1; no clear consensus for #2; nothing on the talk page about #3 (spelling and grammar), no discussion about #4 (partner attribute), no discussion about #5 or #6 (spelling and grammar). EDIT: There actually is between ] and ], but it all happened '''after''' the edit warring, by which time it was too late. ] (]) 02:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::Clearly #1 is vandalism, as obvious from and the bizarre that you somehow missed. You want users to discuss spelling and grammar before addressing the issue in a frequently visited article? And it was too late for what? You appear to have a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of the 3RR and this noticeboard. ] (]) 03:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:I have just noticed and find it rather disturbing; please compare to ]'s user page. This report might not be so random after all. ] (]) 00:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Probability and statistics}}
::It should be obvious that my user page is sarcasm, and I take Misplaced Pages very seriously; those who treat it like a game spoil it. ] (]) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:{{AN3|s}} – Even if this was a 3RR violation (which is not easy to determine) the last edit by Surtsicna was more than 24 hours ago. I suggest opening an RfC on the talk page for anything still in dispute. The recent history includes at least by ] but the heavy attention that the article is currently getting seems likely to fix any obvious mistakes quickly. It would be a nice gesture if ] were to remove the commentary about another editor from his talk page, which dates from 2016. It is inevitable that people get into disputes but it's unwise to cherish the memory of the old ones. ] (]) 04:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
::{{reply to|EdJohnston}} Thanks, but in April they were found to be a sock puppet and blocked, so I hope you'll understand why I'm not going to perform that nice gesture. ] (]) 12:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Moonis Elahi}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Muhamamd Aziz Saeed}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Previous version reverted to:


Slow-motion edit-warring: original bold edit was , subsequent reversions are , , .
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|813772049|04:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|813634188|12:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)}} ""


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
#


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|1270081668|20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* WP:SELFREF */ Reply"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
The last revert follows talk-page discussion in which two users (including me) have rejected their arguments and no one has agreed with them. Here was their addition to the talk-page before their most recent revert: . ] (]) 17:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 22:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 36 hours, reporter blocked 24, and page protected for a week) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Nachos}}
;<u>Comments:</u>


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Rauzoi}}
This SPA is continuously engaging in disruptive editing. I first reported him on ] for adding unsourced and promotional material to a BLP after which he was ]. he continued with his disruptive editing behaviour against warnings which led me to file a new report on AN and this time he was ]. In retaliation, he went on to file reports against me twice ] ]. he is continously repeatedly doing promotional edits by citing unreliable sources to illustrate a point on a particular BLP despite i told him not to do so on my talk page]. ] (]) 05:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:I agree that this is just slow-motion edit warring and that there are BLP concerns. I'd like to see if Mr. Godric's rewrite of the addition an acceptable compromise or if he just starts to edit war with different material. ] ] 23:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
::{{AN3|b}} – 1 week. Long-term edit warring and promotional editing on an BLP article. Previously by ]. if they reverted the article again without getting consensus, but the pattern still continues. It appears the editor has no other goal on Misplaced Pages than to force this article to the version he prefers. They have given for their behavior elsewhere on this board which I don't find persuasive, since it doesn't address the charge of edit warring. ] (]) 04:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Kuru}} I am fine with edits made by ]. --] (]) 08:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: No action ) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Moonis Elahi}}
# {{diff2|1270462611|17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754 vandalized by Crasias"
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Saqib}}
# {{diff|oldid=1270457231|diff=1270459938|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1270459303|17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
## {{diff2|1270459938|17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1270456533|16:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754"
# {{diff|oldid=1270368949|diff=1270375910|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1270375677|06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754"
## {{diff2|1270375910|06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=1270037609|diff=1270355298|label=Consecutive edits made from 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1270354944|04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|1270355115|04:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|1270355298|04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Variations */"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
;Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1270460344|17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|810772356|12:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|811384666|08:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|811408075|12:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|811677142|05:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|812506657|06:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|813384938|06:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|813585020|06:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|813635253|15:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)}}


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


Frequently removing and replacing sourced content that identifies Nachos as "Tex-Mex" rather than "Mexican" ] (]) 17:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
:{{AN3|bb}} Rauzoi for 36 hours and Crasias for 24 (one less revert over the limit). ] does not cover this. Furthermore ...
:{{AN3|p}} Extended-confirmed for a week since, as both editors are autoconfirmed only, they will not be able to resume hostilities once the blocks expire. The talk page hasn't been used in months. ] (]) 23:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sex differences in intelligence}} <br />
;<u>Comments:</u>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BoneCrushingDog}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
The user for no rhyme or reason is "continuously repeatedly" obstructing my right to contribute credible & authentic information in the public domain. All my contributions on the said User Page conform to the Misplaced Pages policies & guidelines aimed at ensuring relevance, value & non-disruption to the community. I fail to understand the User's intent in deleting these contributions and simultaneously building a negative case against me. While fully acknowledging his right to provide information based on reliable sources, the edits he has referred to as promotional are by all means factual and have been obtained from credible sources. These sources have also been cited with the said edits.
A discussion with the user is going on ]. I have asked to him many times to idicate which cition is not from a reliable source. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
:I was expecting this report against me in retaliation. The problem is you're not adding ''credible and authentic information'' but OR based on unreliable sources which violates BLP policies. It is not only me who have issues with your questionable edits to ]. ] has also reverted your version and re-wrote it . --] (]) 08:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

* {{AN3|no}}. This is a retaliatory report; see report above. Even if it was not, Saqib's position is pretty sound. That was a very poorly written addition to a BLP; see Mr. Godric's re-write for a better approach. ] ] 23:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dolno}} <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Czarnkowo, Bytów County}} <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Objezierze, Bytów County}} <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Kruszka, Pomeranian Voivodeship}} <br />

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Volunteer Marek}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# article name ] #
# article name ] #
# article name ] #
# article name ] #
# article name ] #
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''An overview of the big amounf of unexplained revisions:'''
#


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' <u>'''Comments:'''</u> Note that these edits fall squarely under ], and the last (6th) revert was done ''after'' they were . ] (]) 23:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)<br />
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 00:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page already semi-protected) ==
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
I received a notification of 99+ revisions on my page on Village pages which had a reliable source on their former German names, revisions done without explanation. Sometimes the pages had a Kashubian name, but without any source. That's why they were removed because when I started here, mine were removed as well without any source (What is totally understandable). I dont say he is no reliable User, which contributions are not good, yet it is seen that it was not the first report on revisions made. The amount of MORE THAN 99 revisions on ONE DAY (5th of December) WITHOUT ANY EPXLANATION and revisions done within SECONDS is the reason for this report. It is hard to change those all again. ] (]) 16:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Exclusive economic zone}}
This is ], who was indefinetly banned in 2013 by ]. They were banned for doing the exact same thing - inserting German, including Nazi-era, names into articles on small, obscure Polish villages in the Pomerania and Masuria regions (his particular obsession). Oh, and for harassment and making violent threats. Another indication it's the same user is the source he's using - it's an obscure genealogy website which was also used by Kaiser, iirc. He's been coming back intermittently since 2013, usually getting his new accounts blocked, or at least his edits reverted. This time he's using an automated tool to do it to hundreds, if not thousands of articles. I would appreciate a quick block here since it's a total time sink to have to revert these automated edits manually.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
*], please provide a few details/diffs for proper ID. ], there is good reason to believe you are indeed that user; if you are not, I am sure you will cooperate by not making those edits (or reverts) for the time being. ] (]) 15:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
**], I see that they edited ], but again, I need something more precise if you want me to block and revert. Perhaps there are other admins and editors who know about this editor and can weigh in? Is Molobo still around? ] (]) 16:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
An unproved quick block maybe should be done to this User which reverts so many pages without any explanation. I do not see any reason why I should be this user. I would love to see any prove that I am doing thos edits with an automatic tool. I did them all manually so its a bit surreal to hear from this User that I do them by any automatic tool. I was not only using this page if you clearly look at my edits and my introduction page and my sources. That means the user did not even look at all my sources. Second if you see my contribution page, I do not edit every day. Theres a huge gap between those days I edit. I do not see any Problem about adding a sourced Information on village pages. I will cooperate of course but not if he continues to reverse those pages without any prove that i use "automatic tools". It was hard work to add those edits ] (]) 17:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:I reverted you because 1) you're a sock puppet of an indef banned user (who was banned for this exact thing + harassment and violent threats), 2) your edits are disruptive and have no consensus, 3) you're using automated tools to make thousands of them, so as to purposefully make them difficult to undo.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:BTW, this user (or the sock master) is also banned from German Misplaced Pages and possibly several other Wikipedias.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|177.84.58.25}}
Like I said I have nothing to do with this history. I am not banned from German Misplaced Pages nor am I any sock master or however you call me. Show any prove before you do such assumptions. Here is my current IP "188.98.227.243". I have never been to any other[REDACTED] than the German and English one.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Borowo,_Kartuzy_County&oldid=prev&diff=813775443
Here is an example of my edit. I was using no automatic tool. They are not hard to undo. Second I am using different sources. ] (]) 17:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:Even your edit summaries are automated. And yes, when you make thousands of these edits (made within less than a second of each other), you're 1) clearly using a bot, 2) making them hard to undo. You might be running two or three scripts each with a slightly different source but no one makes that many edits in so short a period of time without a bot. Stop the BS.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:Also, that IP you gave does in fact match up generally with KvE's (they used IP sock puppets), though I'm sure that account itself is stale.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:And seriously, the fact that you're KvE is obvious. For example, a lot of your automated edits concern small, obscure, villages in ], which have like 14 people in them. How many people are the on Misplaced Pages that give a damn about Chojnice freakin' county? Two. Kaiser Von Europa and you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:(and presumably you're using some version of ] to make these edits).<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:Another set of villages that KvE obsessed about was the ones in ]. Same thing for Renekm . If I remember correctly it was Chojnice, Braniewo and... Pieniezno, was it? Oh and Bytow. Again, these are obscure villages and you're doing the same thing Kaiser was doing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
You still did not give any IP from this User plus I am from Germany. " here is an example of my edits : ({{lang-de|Krug Borowo}})<ref name="Former Territory of Germany">{{cite web|url=http://www.westpreussen.de/cms/ct/ortsverzeichnis/details.php?ID=3671|title=Former Territory of Germany|date=2017-12-05|language=German}}"
# {{diff|oldid=1270539434|diff=1270541014|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}}

## {{diff2|1270540192|01:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Eu não sou essa pessoa que você está a citar eu comecei a alterar essa página essa e a minhas primeiras vezes , eu estou alteração está página porque eu gosto de ver a área da ZEE de cada país um abaixo do outro ."
I am copying the link like seen here and past it to other pages but i am looking in different pages for a reliable source related to this article and change it automatically.
## {{diff2|1270540659|01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I started changing this page today I'm just making changes to this page because I like to see the Zee area of each country in the world, please don't make changes"

## {{diff2|1270541014|01:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I started changing this page today I'm just making changes to this page because I like to see the Zee area of ​​each country in the world, please don't make changes"
Second I am using an overview like this : "http://gov.genealogy.net/item/show/object_1073444" and there I see the names the is related to each source.
# {{diff2|1270537566|00:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Eu não vou mais fazer alteração se deixar o Rankings by area porque eu gosto de Rankings by area"

# {{diff2|1270536155|00:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ZEE com alteração perfeita"
I am copying this link and i change the source of each village exactly to the given source. I am not using any bot. Your niveau of language is a bit questionable. You should change your "bullshit" language.
# {{diff2|1270532750|00:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Alterei o tamanho da zona exclusiva econômica do brasil porque a ZEE aumentou em 2024"
Your assumptions of me being any other users or using any bot is still not visable. Show any prove of this - ] (]) 17:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270527449|23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Antes essa página sofreu alteração incorreta, com eu fiz uma alteração mais correta ."


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Plus you should change your language, its disrespectful to use such a "bullshit" language - ] (]) 17:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270537849|00:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
*{{U|Renekm}}, you made only one more edit after I warned you (a second time); I appreciate that you stopped. ] (]) 16:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
{{AN3|nv}} ] says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page... within a 24-hour period". ''Renekm'' has shown evidence of ''Volunteer Marek'' making single reverts on five different pages.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 16:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
*Toddy, Renek could argue that this is edit warring; we shouldn't just look at 3R. But the strong suspicion that this is socking is already good enough for me to decline any action against Marek. ] (]) 16:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


I will stop editing no because it seems its a crime to bring information into wikipedia. Second a suspicion is no evidence, which is still not given. and third decline a mistake just because another user did a mistake (if they were true) is showing no real justice ] (]) 17:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


We discover this week that random numbers were changed a while ago. We changed them back and sort of started a discussion ]
Addition: he continues reversing pages while matter is not settled and gives me deeper feel to argue that this is edit warring. I am not editing anymore until is this settled so I wish that the user is not reversing any article related to his assumption till the matter is solved.] (]) 18:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:I suggest that you open a discussion on ]. So far the only talk pages this has been discussed on are ] and ].--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 17:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Suggestion taken, yet I still wish to see on on edit warring. "https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=K%C4%99trzyno&oldid=prev&diff=813864108" As seen in the link the user continues reversing pages while it is not solved yet. ] (]) 17:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


We are not sure what they are doing...... Think they're mistaken continental shelf for EEZ.<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 01:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} (already semi-protected) ] (]) 06:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Already blocked) ==
This indeed seems to be sock of the ], note that the user just like KvE uses Nazi publications and actually misleads by stating that he adds "German names" while in fact he adds names given to locations by Nazi regime.
See for example here an edit has added a name given to location by Nazis in 1938-1945(they led a campaign to Germanize Slavic sounding location names in Germany) not the actual old German name that was used in the past(if you go into the link used to provide the name you will see it). Also the edit adds a link naming it in capital letters "Former Territory of Germany" although the source itself isn't named as such. On users main wikispace he states that his sources include "Gemeindeverzeichnis, Groß Deutsches Reich 1939" which after a quick search turns out to be a Nazi publication printed by Nazi Germany in 1941.Kaiser von Europa was obsessed about using Nazi sources for Polish cities.
This is just a brief look on this user edits, I am sure that if I would look more, I would find further examples.Even if not KvE, using Nazi publications as source for Polish history, presenting Nazi names falsely as traditional German names and tagging Polish locations as "Former Territory of Germany" seems very disruptive--] (]) 19:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:I agree with your analysis and, as a result, I have indeffed Renekm. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 14:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:*], ], thank you both--yes, that is the kind of specificity that those who are not that familiar with the subject matter need. {{U|Volunteer Marek}}, better safe than sorry: you may think I was too slow or too reluctant to pull the trigger, but this account had been here for a long time and CU revealed I could do anything with. I know it is frustrating to deal with a sock when you know ''exactly'' what's going on (I've had that situation before, and {{U|Timmyshin}} is in that situation now) but the others don't see it--help them see it. Thanks all, ] (]) 16:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
*Marek ''et alia'': I dropped a page with information on the CU wiki; next time this comes up, you can ask a CU to have a look at that. ] (]) 17:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Harti}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2A01:4B00:D10A:6700:C8CB:A681:5BFA:C14D}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Spider-Man:_Homecoming}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Erik}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1270551103|02:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Enterprisers */"
#
# {{diff2|1270550937|02:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Royalty */"
#
# {{diff2|1270550061|02:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Enterprisers */"
#
# {{diff|oldid=1270548846|diff=1270549881|label=Consecutive edits made from 02:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) to 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1270549319|02:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Royalty */"
## {{diff2|1270549881|02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Politicians */"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1270550935|02:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Edit Warring */ new section"
On 15 Nov, 2017, I removed the See also section as too tangential, trivial and SYN for inclusion. Today (20 days later), after weeks of no argument with the removal, Erik chose to reinstate the material. So far, no problem, right? So I revert it back and suggest that his Bold removal suggests the next step for him is discussion. Except, Erik doesn't initiate discussion until after he's already come right up to the electric fence, 3R-speaking. While I am sure that he didn't realize that his revert was the B in the BRD, I offered him the opportunity to self-revert and use discussion to sort out the problem. So far, he seems unapologetic, which I find strange; Erik has a rep for pretty conscientious editing practices. <br>
I'm using this forum, because my request of Erik to self-revert went unanswered, and this forum seems a pretty good way of getting a point across when other means fail. As far as edit-warring goes, its annoying, but not severe; a self-revert by Erik and move to discussion might be the best answer here, as opposed to a block. This isn't a 4R (though I have no doubt that Erik would have blown past the electric fence had i reverted him again); it's simple edit-warring by Erik.


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ],


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:- ] (]) 19:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
::Jack decided to file this report after discussion started at ]. (We almost simultaneously posted discussion threads there.) ] has also been notified of the discussion. Can others please weigh in on what should be done? I can't help but feel that Jack Sebastian, who appears to have a long history of problems at ANI, is trying to weaponize this process against me. If someone else thinks I should self-revert until discussion pans out, then I will. Not sure why Jack himself is so intent on excluding non-detrimental content. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 19:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


and again , and
:::Pardon me, but "who appears to have a long history of problems at ANI" seems like quite a bit of passive-aggressive bullshit, Erik. In point of fact,my last visit with ANI was over '''two years ago'''. I find your attempt at trying to make my past the source of your current misbehavior disconcerting.
*{{AN3|ab}} (/64 blocked for 1 week by {{u|Daniel Case}}) ] (]) 06:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I was polite in my condemnation of your edit-warring, suggesting that your behavior was atypical. I think that, in the interest of AGF, you dispense with the personal attacks. We aren't talking about my behavior, which has been professional in this matter. Act like a grown-up, please.
:::And while we're on the subject of Asssuming Good Faith, I'm fairly certain that suggesting that I am trying to "weaponize this process" - ie. reporting a problematic behavior by an edit-warring user is more of a personal attack than good faith. Its that sort of presumption that makes collaborative editing more difficult.
:::Lastly, if Erik is "not sure" why I am editing the way I am editing, the clear move is to initiate discussion, not edit-war. That Erik has decided to attack me is worrisome. - ] (]) 20:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
Please note that another editor weighed in about the matter, and I've removed the content pending a fuller discussion. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 20:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::Well, I submitted the report because Erik had chosen to edit-war about the inclusion of info and - dare I say - "weaponizing" BRD as an excuse to do so. As the long-time user clearly has no intention of admitting he was edit-warring or apologizing for the passive aggressive assholery, I will take his reconsidered self-revert and participation in discussion. I wish it had occurred to him to seek additional input before revert-warring, though. Sigh. - ] (]) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::<u>Update</u>: Hey, does going to a Wikiproject page and inviting defenders to contribute and ]) constitute ]? - ] (]) 20:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::It's not canvassing. The message text is intentionally neutral like other notifications seen on the talk page. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 20:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I'll repeat the same question I posed to you on the Wikproject talk page: how does a user conduct complaint have anything to do with a discussion about content? Come on, man; you were canvassing, and this half-assed excuse is just insulting to all of us. You're better than this. Stop compounding the problem, Erik. - ] (]) 21:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::I wasn't canvassing. Someone followed up as a result and did not think the links belonged, and I removed the "See also" section pending a fuller discussion. That's all I was looking for -- ]. (I disagree wholeheartedly with the fourth editor restoring the section.) The third opinion's not sufficient to me for concluding the matter, of course, but it set a new local consensus for the time being, separating the matter from this animosity between you and me. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 22:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tübingen School}}
*'''Comment''' Saw this report mentioned at the Film project (for the sake of disclosure). Erik has indeed reverted four times but his last revert was actually a self-revert of his previous revert. If he had not self-reverted he would not have violated 3RR, so a block for a self-revert would be pretty harsh IMO. There is now a discussion progressing on the talk page. IMO this report does not need to be actioned unless trouble starts up again. If either editor gets taken out for 24 hours it just delays the talk page discussion by 24 hours at this stage. ] (]) 22:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
** A small point, but not all reverts count as strikes for 3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." So a self-revert doesn't count at all, and a series of consecutive reverts counts as a single strike. <span style="font-weight:bold">]]</span> 22:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xpander1}}
::::<u>Comment</u>: As I noted earlier, i wasn't complaining that Erik had pushed past the 'electric fence'; I was arguing that he was pointedly edit-warring to the limits of not getting reported. While all 3rr issues are edit-warring, not all edit-warring are 3rr. The problem is that Erik was on the Bold side of BRD, and instead of initiating discussion, he simply reverted precisly three times and when his version was safely in, only then did he initiate discussion. That's newbie, tendentious behavior, and Erik is experienced enough to know that his behavior here was problematic. And then he compounds it by seeking defenders in the Wikifilm talk age for his complaint here. That's not acceptable. - ] (]) 23:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:::Please note that I haven't ''even once'' suggested that Erik be blocked. The action I was seeking - namely, self-reverting and engaging in discussion - he did (only after someone else disagreed with his assessment). He then compounded the problem by letting folk know of the complaint against his actions here. I don't think canvassing has a better description: asking for third opinions on matters of content is fine; seeking defenders to your cause from a group you regularly work with is not. It's really that simple.
:::There isn't any animosity between Erik and I; I had a ton of respect for Erik's behavior. He's just acted sloppily here. - ] (]) 22:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

* {{AN3|no}}. 15:48 reverts a 11/15 edit by Jack. 18:56 is a direct revert. 19:04 is a direct revert, but is reversed in his edit at 20:05. ] ] 23:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|FSU (disambiguation)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|SeminoleNation}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1270589185|07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"


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


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


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)
I have raised this against ], although ] could equally be said to be edit-warring. It takes two. I don't take a position on which version of the article (disambiguation page) is correct, only that it cannot be resolved this way. ] (]) 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
: These are not differing versions, but a matter of not unilaterally implementing an undiscussed page move by cutting and pasting the content. RM discussion has begun ] and previously at ] and ]. ] ≠ ] 20:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
*{{AN3|warned}} ] 20:16, 5 December 2017 (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 ], 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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
::As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on ] and on the . ] (]) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


The Teahouse discussion can be found (for now) at ]. Please see also ] and ]. ] (]) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
;Page: {{pagelinks|Saoirse Ronan}}
:{{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)
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Torah28}}
::'''Addendum''': I also commend ] to {{u|Xpander1}}'s attention. ] (]) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Oriel High School}}
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=813909747|diff=813910548|label=Consecutive edits made from 22:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC) to 22:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|813909947|22:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* 2015–present */"
## {{diff2|813910161|22:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 813909747 by ] (]) The parents careers already feature in section"
## {{diff2|813910288|22:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 813909477 by ] (])It's not relevant information-Ronan no longer lives there"
## {{diff2|813910548|22:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 813909116 by ] (]) Yes, her wiki page is to highlight her work not add info deemed controversial by some"
# {{diff2|813908911|22:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 813908346 by ] (]) Removal of parental information. This page is about Ronan-not her mom & dad"
# {{diff2|813908283|21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 813906884 by ] (]) Reverting back SNL piece to ''Saoirse Ronan guest hosted SNL with musical guest U2''"
# {{diff2|813906075|21:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* 2015–present */ This page is to *highlight* Ronan's work-only"
# {{diff2|813904732|21:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 813860895 by ] (])"


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|92.238.20.255}}
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|813904925|21:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking. (])"
# {{diff2|813909632|22:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* December 2017 */ note"


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

;<u>Comments:</u>

Editor is constantly reverting on the article and they don't seem all that willing to discuss it, Thanks –]<sup>]</sup> 22:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
:Quite a few more diffs are available since this filing and quite a few from weeks and months before. I do think it might be time for a very limited in scope TBAN for Saoirse Ronan, not to include talk page, so if he decides to use the talk page people can get his input. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

* {{AN3|b| 48 hours}} Full or partial reverts at 14:35, 21:39, 21:40, 21:46, 21:56, 22:00, 22:10, 22:15, 22:21, 22:29, 22:35. Previously warned about 3RR. ] ] 22:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned user(s)) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|For Britain}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Harry-Oscar 1812}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=&oldid=814024627&title=For_Britain
# {{diff2|814024702|13:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814024627 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|814024501|13:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814024627 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|813921168|23:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 813920989 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|813919635|23:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision, user keeps removing sourced policy from party page, wiki articles use these official pages for policy so is perfectly valid."
# {{diff2|813919015|23:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 813916360 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|813914617|22:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 813879248 by ] (])"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|813921223|23:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

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

# user invited to post to talk page
;<u>Comments:</u>
*Harry-Oscar 1812 has reverted twice today: and . ] (]) 13:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
*They are basically a for all things For Britain-related, and this edit-war has been going on since 5 Dece,ber at least. ]]] 14:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}} I have issued a very blunt Final Warning. If they continue with their disruptive editing ping me and I will block them. -] (]) 14:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Smile (Doctor Who)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sirenofthesea}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|118.143.40.9}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1270686162|19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
# (initial edit)
# {{diff2|1270685824|19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
# (logged out)
# {{diff2|1270685483|19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
# (logged in)
# {{diff2|1270684934|19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
# (logged in)
# {{diff2|1270683674|19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
# (logged in)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


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


<u>'''Comments''': This IP is trying to censor information in that article --] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</u>
The editor has violated 3RR with their edits, which they have performed while both logged in and out (noted that they're the same editor because the IP started the discussion while talking about their reverts while logged in), with the reverts against both myself and another editor on the page, who recommended that they take it to the talk page. They appear to have refused to either of my 3RR template warns, or my message. -- ''']''''']'' 06:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ] (]) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:I am astonished to see that under "attempt to resolve dispute", this guy has linked to what ''I'' put on the talk page, to which he did not sensibly respond. At no point has he tried to explain his actions, except perhaps in one incoherent edit summary. I do not believe there is a dispute here. I do not think the editor is acting in good faith and trying to improve the article. I regard their undoing of my straightforward edit without coherent explanation as some strange kind of vandalism. ] (]) 14:58, 6 December 2017 (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)
::{{AN3|b}} – 24 hours. 'Undoing a straightforward edit without coherent explanation' is not one of the exceptions listed in ]. When disagreement exists, you are expected to wait for consensus instead of continuing to revert. ] (]) 16:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' ] <br />
;Page: {{pagelinks|Tedros Adhanom}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|HenosA}} '''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:
# {{diff2|813996925|09:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Mugabe Goodwill Ambassador controversy */ Removed content because of its little importance"
# {{diff2|813992037|09:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Tenure */ . The coverage of Mugabe's nomination as good will is unnecessary as the decision was reversed within 24 hours. There are many news positive happening regarding Tedros Adhanom but are not necessarily reflected in the Wikipidia."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|813995154|09:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|813995621|09:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Tedros Adhanom */ new section"
# {{diff2|813997210|09:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|813997367|09:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* BLP */ new section"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Editor is a SPA who has been repeatedly removing a section about the WHO DG's appointment of Robert Mugabe as WHO goodwill ambassador. First removal was 27 October , and the same day . First edit warring notice was issued . Editor has again removed the section twice today, despite my message explaining that the event was significant, received global coverage and condemnation, and asking that they use the article talk page to discuss its removal. This is a 2-in-24 hr revert situation right now, however their behavior indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly without discussion, and clearly constitutes edit warring without 3RR being breached. ] (]) 10:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b}} – 24 hours. The user has engaged in long term edit warring to remove mention of the award given to Robert Mugabe. Their account was created on 27 October. Their sole interest on Misplaced Pages is this article but they continue to revert without ever posting on the article talk page. They never respond to the messages left on their own talk. ] (]) 04:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Me Too (hashtag)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|70.112.229.80}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|814077725|19:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814076854 by ] (]) Please see talk page."
# {{diff2|814071531|19:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "The existence of this section has already been vetted by two high-level administrators."
# {{diff2|814068081|18:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814067888 by ] (]) Again, the People of the Year are The Silence Breakers, not MeToo"
# {{diff2|814067118|18:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814066849 by ] (]) undid vandalism; each name has a source"
# {{diff2|814064554|18:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814064363 by ] (]) See talk page; undid further vandalism"
# {{diff|oldid=814039187|diff=814046566|label=Consecutive edits made from 16:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC) to 16:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|814046439|16:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814039187 by ] (]) Undid vandalism"
## {{diff2|814046566|16:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814038605 by ] (]) MeToo is NOT Time's Person of the Year."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|814069061|18:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (])"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|814031876|14:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath list is not accurate */"
# {{diff2|814044452|16:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* List of accused */"
# {{diff2|814051893|17:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* List of accused */ c/e"
# {{diff2|814059547|17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Time Person of the Year */"
# {{diff2|814062159|18:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath list is not accurate */"
# {{diff2|814065833|18:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* RfC on list of public figures mentioned */"
# {{diff2|814075632|19:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Discussion */ c/e"

;<u>Comments:</u>

IP keeps reverting edits that multiple editors believe are BLP violations. ] (]) 18:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I request that the page be locked from any more editing, especially mass deletions of information that is the result of numerous hours of hard work by multiple contributors. There is no consensus as Kb.au seems to imply.] (]) 18:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:Currently up to 5 reverts of 4 different editors. --] 19:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to request that SarekOfVulcan be prevented from further editing and commenting on the page. He has made egregious factual and judgment errors. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

This user isn't getting better after a month, and has pretty much said that they won't stop doing this, and that all the long-term, experienced editors should be stopped instead. I guess 70.112.229.80's own response above about SarekOfVulcan is its own evidence, but here is some more background: This editor was already warned about 3RR at ]. 70.112.229.80 showed up on November 2 and keeps adding, and re-adding, to ], a ]-related list of everyone who's said by any fourth-rate gossip magazine, up to first-rate sources, to have had anything whispered about them, without making any distinction between the level of conduct, or the level of evidence, let alone whether it was related to the #MeToo hashtag. The IP continues to revert experienced editors, including admins, and describing it as "undid vandalism", despite being warned, in at least 6 different article talk page headings, from experienced editors, that it's against Misplaced Pages policy per ]. Here are some of the places where this IP acknowleged that they saw the BLP warnings, but thinks that their own flexible interpretation of BLP is smarter than everyone else's:
* ] (2017-10-30 to 2017-11-16)
* ] (2017-11-04 to 2017-11-30)
* ] (2017-11-14 to 2017-11-17)
* The intro to ] (2017-11-16 to 2017-11-17)
* ] (2017-11-27 to now)
* ] (today): Did the triggering 3RR revert on the article <em>while</em> I was posting to the article talk page to try to remind this IP of 3RR again, and that removal of BLP violations doesn't count as 3RR, but addition does.
* ] (today)
For 70.112.229.80's attitude towards experienced editors, ], and consensus, compare ] (2017-11-26 to 2017-12-04), and ] (2017-12-03 to 2017-12-04), which presumes consensus, and contains the following line: {{tq|There's a lot of handwringing over "accuracy", but guess what? If you do any amount of digging, a good 80%-plus of the people listed have been Suspended, Fired, or Arrested.}} --] (]) 20:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Closeapple wants either a table or only "rapists" to be mentioned, never mind the idea that MeToo is about sexual misconduct and gender discrimination en totale, not just rape. Either way, both Samsara and Cullen328 had no problems with the list back in November. Furthermore, RSs have already proven SarekOfVulcan wrong when he mistakenly edited the page to announce that Time Magazine had named MeToo as the 2017 Person of the Year.] (]) 21:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

* I agree with the people above - something probably must be done with that user. He completely removed a well-sourced statement about Trump from the introduction of the article about #me too. The part he removed was actually a quote from a reputable british newspaper the Telegraph. He stated his reasoning in the edit summary, but it's basically some original research. ] (]) 22:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

::I guess you didn't comprehend my explanation for that reversion, which was that the furor over Trump took place in 2016 before he was sworn in as POTUS in January 2017. MeToo started in October 2017. If there was a trigger incident, it was the Harvey Weinstein situation, NOT Trump.] (]) 22:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} by {{noping|Primefac}}. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 22:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan is now trying to protect a self-admitted paid editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Me_Too_(hashtag)&action=history
] (]) 00:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 1 day, quickly upgraded to indef) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|2015 Baltimore protests}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|ScienceDrummer1}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|814086026|20:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814085873 by ] (]) Protesting is showing a distaste of an injustice. Rioting is destroying shit because you have nothing better to do in your life. Fuck off."
# {{diff2|814085348|20:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814083297 by ] (]) Go ahead bro. I'm only changing a word out. I'm not doing any harm but making it more truthful to what actually happened. Go cry some more."
# {{diff2|814081812|20:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814078985 by ] (]) Nice try. Stop trying to normalize rioting by calling it a protest."
# {{diff2|813701094|20:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 813337512 by ] (]) Destroying stuff is not protesting. Knock it off. This is clear rioting."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: {{diff2|814085518|20:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}}


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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Except for that one revert, I am uninvolved in this matter. ]] 20:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:Also be aware that the user once made aware of it. ]] 20:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

:Blocked 1 day for clear edit warring, after a couple of 3RR warnings; then started using homophobic slurs while complaining (which is not normal venting) and so reblocked indef. --] (]) 21:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Brexit}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|86.170.121.152}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# # https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
# # https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081
# # https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230019964
# # https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230184562
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
An (apparently) brand new IP user has made 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. They're comments on talk or edit summaries haven't been exactly constructive (''" in the hope of shaming him"'', ''"do your homework"'' , ''" your expertise is clearly not fine"'' etc). There is also a fundamental problem of ] here as the user simply has failed to understand the underlying source and its methodology - which is fine, since this is economics and sort of technical, but they've managed to convince themselves that it's everyone else that's wrong. So they're edit warring to insert text based on the source that is simply factually wrong (not in like "wrong opinion" wrong, but as in "2+2=5" wrong). I've asked them to self-revert several times. Instead they seem more interested in playing some "gotcha" games on talk and keep finding new ways to misunderstand the same material.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:'''Result:''' Page semiprotected six months. This continues to be a hotly disputed topic; see the length of the protection log. IPs can continue to propose changes on Talk. ] (]) 06:06, 7 December 2017 (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: Protected) ==


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Joy-Ann Reid}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks| Jaydogg1994}}

'''Previous version reverted to:''' (multiple; this editor is reverting various revisions)

'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


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


Hello
This editor clearly understand 3RR because they attempted to report other users for 3RR violations in this dispute.
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)
The only BLP violation on this page is the section that was being removed by Jaydogg. ] (]) 03:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) ==
I removed it because it was a unnecessary section that violated ] and was only there to attack the subject, also the sources were unreliable and opinion pieces that violated ], I didn't break any rules, The other editors agreed that the section should be removed :https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Joy-Ann_Reid#Partisan_edits_by_Bernie_Supporters, It's a lie that I "attempted to report other users for 3RR violations in this dispute"' I told user ] that he was violating rules and that he already was warned by {{diff2|806764025| 1) by }} {{ut|Dyrnych}} and {{diff2|809228788| 2) by }} {{ut|My very best wishes}} for edit warring on other topics and I forgot to mention that he was warned by {{ut|Jim1138}} for edit warring on the ] article :https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=813185756. ] (]) 06:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:I stand corrected re: 3RR report. The BLP exemption you are claiming is a stretch as there was no clear editorial consensus on the article's talk page. ] (]) 16:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:: I'd also suggest that you take a minute to read ] with respect to your talk page comments and revision log messages. (e.g. "I don't have to explain anything to you, You are obviously biased against the subject…", "This is part of a targeted smear campaign trying to get her fired, It dosen't belong on wikipedia.") ] (]) 16:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:: You might also want to read ] and in the future, draw attention to a specific BLP issue you believe to be at stake instead of just reverting. ] (]) 16:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:{{AN3|p}} – 5 days. Please use the talk page to reach consensus on the disputed matters. ] (]) 18:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ergzay}}
;Page: {{pagelinks|Bajrang Dal}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Mntzr}}


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


;Diffs of the user's reverts: '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1270885082|18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Reverting for user specifying basically ] as their reasoning"
# {{diff|oldid=814065803|diff=814089989|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC) to 21:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}}
# {{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|814072151|19:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Removed biased view point. The org does not describe itself as extremist or militant. Such opinion belong in criticism, not introduction."
# {{diff2|1270878417|17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Removing misinformation"
## {{diff2|814076212|19:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Origin */"
# {{diff2|1270875037|17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
## {{diff2|814076353|19:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Origin */"
## {{diff2|814085561|20:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Reference added." # {{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"
## {{diff2|814089989|21:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|814065034|18:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|814055796|17:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)}} "The allegation already mentioned in criticism section."
# {{diff2|813885463|19:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)}} ""


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


;<u>Comments:</u>
is a gem. -- ] (]) 01:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
* {{AN3|b| 24 hours}}. Clear reverts at 19:38 (revert back to 11/21), 17:28, 18:27, 19:12. Was previously warned about 3RR. ] ] 01:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
*This is a case of pretty clear NOTHERE.]<sup>]</sup> 04:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
== ] reported by ] (Result: Both warned) ==


Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
;Page: {{pagelinks|Arab Gulf Cup Football Federation}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Bijanii}}


] 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)
;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|814177798|08:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814177531 by ] (]) This is how the article was; you're edit warring. Take it to the talk page before undoing."
# {{diff2|814176679|08:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814176094 by ] (]) It's in the name itself. See your talk page and stop edit warring."
# {{diff2|814174136|08:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "The name is indicative of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|814177630|08:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|814176007|08:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Member countries in the federation description */ new section"
# {{diff2|814178159|08:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "/* Member countries in the federation description */"

;<u>Comments:</u>
*I'd make the case that it's UA3 who is edit warring by changing the original content of the page and undoing my edits even after I've discussed on the talk page. I'd prefer to leave it be and not edit war.--] (]) 08:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:*'''Result:''' Both '''warned'''. If either ] or ] reverts again without a prior consensus on the talk page, they are risking a block. This dispute is hard to understand: if you just give the names of all the countries included in the league, isn't that what matters? If you want the exact nuances of how those countries got together, that might require more sources than anybody would have the patience for. ] (]) 23:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Patriot Prayer}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|PeterTheFourth}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|814259211|19:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Try this?"
# {{diff2|814200392|12:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 814189515 by ] (]) Introduces both spelling errors and pushes a POV. Stop it, Darkness"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Either it's 1RR or remove the restriction ] (]) 21:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how the later edit is a revert of anything except the "citation needed" tag, and the edit's reconstruction of the sentence is, IMO, a good-faith effort at addressing the tag by rewording in accordance with the source. I mean, I guess they could have left the tag in and added a "citation no longer needed?" tag, but that seems like needless bureaucracy. ] (]) 21:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:The point is, there ain't consensus for the change, just like tbe fuest revert, it's either 1RR or not. ] (]) 21:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
::The edit wouldn't have been a revert without removing the "citation needed" tag, though - it simply would have been an edit. Is fixing something that someone has tagged, but not removing the tag because removing the tag would be reverting, what we want to incentivize here? Seems counterproductive to me. ] (]) 22:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:::He changed the content, thats a rv ] (]) 22:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
My bad, didn't think this would be a problem. I've now self reverted. {{u|Utsill}}, if you thought my addressing of the citation problem (removing the uncited material) was helpful, feel free to revert my selfrevert. ] (]) 22:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:The current page looks good to me! ] (]) 00:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

He has self reverted so close please ] (]) 22:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think the self-revert was correct, but I also think the suggestion is worth a try. So I reverted. Cheers all. ] (]) 22:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Withdrawn by submitter. ] (]) 22:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|The Mr. Peabody & Sherman Show}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|70.30.250.40}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|814287520|22:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "You are an idiot user!"
# {{diff2|814286946|22:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Ha! I don't want serie fianles, you foolish editor!"
# {{diff2|814286545|22:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "No! Netflix will confiremed Seasons 5 and 6 of TMPASS"
# {{diff2|814286105|22:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "I AM VERY ANGRY OF YOU! yYOU HAVE RESTORED YOUR STUPID EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO DO NOT RE-EDIT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
# {{diff2|814285478|22:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "I hate You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
# {{diff2|814270178|20:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|814286384|22:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Has been repeatedly changing content to claim that Netflix has said that the show is continuing despite not providing a link. Also is using personal attacks in their edit summaries. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:This was also reported on RfPP and the IP is blocked 24 hrs. ] 22:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
::At the time of the report I (somehow) missed the report that was made at RPP. Anyway the anon has been blocked so I guess the report can be closed? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24h}} ]] 23:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Star (football badge)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|YenWitch}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

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


:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
This user has a very biased point of view and keeps removing whatever he simply doesn't like on both Persian and English Misplaced Pages, all my previous attempts to resolve the problem seems to be useless, so I simply ask to ban this user specially since he has been banned once before, for 24 hours. ] (]) 00:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
::@] So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. ] (]) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::]: {{tq|An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. ] (]) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. ] (]) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::]: {{tq|There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons}}. – ] (]) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. ] (]) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. ] (]) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
:The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. ] (]) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. ] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording followed by after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. ] (]) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::What is a CTOP? ] (]) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::A CTOP is a ]. ] (]) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages.}} If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. ] (]) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. ] (]) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
: 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)

Latest revision as of 03:26, 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:Noorullah21 reported by User:HerakliosJulianus (Result: No violation)

    Page: Battle of Jamrud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Noorullah21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 07:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270112351 by Noorullah21 (talk): No it hasn't, they haven't even given their conclusion, and you again edited the page to revert it.."
    2. 00:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270108346 by Noorullah21 (talk): No he doesn't, please take this to the talk page now to be more clear."
    3. 23:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270099439 by Noorullah21: "where they too were saved by the arrival of substantial reinforcements.

    Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving the Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimed the victory and was given a hero’s welcome. For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39" -Lee, (calls it a phyrric Afghan victory), and Hussain isn't on google scholars."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ new section"
    2. 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Battle of Jamrud."
    3. 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Battle of Jamrud."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
    2. 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    3. 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    4. 01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    5. 01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    6. 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    7. 02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    8. 02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    9. 02:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"

    Comments:

    This is not the first time they are edit warring and breaking 3RR, they were previously warned by an admin . There seems to be a habit of them continuously misinterpreting the sources and pushing certain PoVs. They have opted for 3O by themselves but disagreed with the opinion given. Indo-Greek 12:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Im not that involved(haven’t reverted anybody, just made a comment on the talk page). As a word of advice because so many people seem to forget this fact, when your adding disputed content, ONUS is on you to attain consensus. Which hasn’t happened here.
    “The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”

    It seems that you yourself were also edit warring, except your the one who’s adding disputed content so per ONUS, you were never supposed to revert him to begin with. You need to wait until talk page discussions conclude and gain consensus. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    A. The instance you pointed out was an administrator warning me for one revert on the History of India page. (Talking to Indo-Greek, the person who reported and I had a dispute with here..)
    B. When the individual hasn't concluded their WP:3O, you immediately reverted the page again saying they did. There's still a very open discussion with the user... (They've even edited the page most recently!.. I'd also like to remind you WP:3O is non binding even when the opinion is given, meaning whether they say either or is in the right.. the dispute can still continue until a Consensus can be made. The burden of proof is on you for WP:ONUS (you also kept readding a non WP:RS source.. (Farrukh Hussain). I pointed out WP:3O as a solution, and you keep reverting the page far before they've given their opinion. Lee... (this is now bringing the argument from the talk page here..) calls it a phyrric victory. Noorullah (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I also told said where per WP:ONUS, it's per them to seek Consensus. Noorullah (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I reverted my edit as of now per the edit summary. (the last edit prior to that is the person working on our WP:3PO. Noorullah (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    This seems like WP:TAGTEAM, but anyways. The admin had warned you for the same edit warring issue, not 1RR. You had asked for 3O which an editor eventually gave one quoting: I found a huge contradiction in your quote. You said "Nothing here calls the battle a Sikh victory," but the quote literally says "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans" which was later discarded by you which is fine, but if other editors accusing you for overlooking the source and found you contradicting yourself then you should have been more cautious rather than outrightly reverting my changes. Indo-Greek 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Have you not read the rest of the discussion..? the WP:3O is being discussed.
    You've completely ignored this.
    Scroll down! (on the talk page). Noorullah (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I also didn't violate the 3 revert rule. I didn't revert 4 times, I reverted 3 times. Although of course, this seems to be more inclined toward edit warring, which both of us did.
    @Someguywhosbored has just jumped into the discussion (and they seem to be more in favor of my argument) -- per their most recent talk page msg on the battle of jamrud, which shows a growing consensus on my side? .. Nonetheless, I still find this report baseless. Noorullah (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Both of us did No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR, don't confuse it with WP:4RR. I also think that Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to? The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT. Indo-Greek 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    What?
    "No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR" -- Yes, I'm talking about myself.. I reverted 3 times, to break the 3rr rule, you have to revert more than three times (i.e 4 times) "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page" -- I also self reverted per the former.
    "Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to?" -- He responded on the talk page (of the page), he responded here, and he also re-reverted the page.
    "The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT." - Are you insinuating @Someguywhosbored is a Meatpuppet? Because you've drawn effectively numerous flanks into the air on what this report is really about.
    A. In your edit summary you said the Third opinion was concluded.. (it wasn't.)
    B. You report here for 3rr (when 3rr wasn't violated, and I'm assuming this is more inclined toward edit war..?)
    C. You then throw around Meatpuppet accusations?
    I'm sorry but there's no way this discussion is remaining civil anymore. Did you even read the Meatpuppet page? "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Misplaced Pages:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."
    Flinging around accusations of Meatpuppetry clearly breaches Civility. Noorullah (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    You also did revert it three times.. Shown here:
    (First time)
    (Second time)
    (Third Time) Noorullah (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are again falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR. You do realise that the first revert was more than 24 hours prior than the other two? I don't have much to say here it's quite self explanatory, while this is not the same case with you, where 3RR has been violated in the span of 24 hours. Indo-Greek 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not accusing you of breaking 3RR, I'm saying you reverted three times. To break 3RR it has to be four reverts. (you have to revert more than three times). Your reverts were also in a 24 hour period. (Or just shy of it?)
    I didn't revert four times to break 3RR. Where are the diffs of me reverting you four times? Noorullah (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. As noted in the loooong discussion above, which again proves that using the talk page is a much preferable alternative to taking it over here. Also, this is getting a bit stale. Daniel Case (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Thomediter reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Declined)

    Page: Next Danish general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Thomediter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:19, 17 January 2025
    2. 11:09, 18 January 2025
    3. 13:03, 18 January 2025
    4. 14:05, 18 January 2025

    Editor was asked to respect BRD and warned that one more revert would result in them being reported for breaching 3RR. They made the fourth revert immediately after responding to the warning.

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

    Comments:

    • User:Thomediter, I am going to revert your last (fourth) revert; you are indeed edit warring and you're not giving any reasons for your edits, never mind for your ongoing reverts. If you revert one more time you will be blocked. Please don't let it get that far. Seek the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Declined per above and reported editor's inactivity. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 19 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:Logoshimpo reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: Blocked 24h)

    Page: Probability and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Slow-motion edit-warring: original bold edit was , subsequent reversions are , , .

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. Gentle warning on article talk-page

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* WP:SELFREF */ Reply"

    Comments: The last revert follows talk-page discussion in which two users (including me) have rejected their arguments and no one has agreed with them. Here was their addition to the talk-page before their most recent revert: . JBL (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Rauzoi reported by User:Crasias (Result: Blocked 36 hours, reporter blocked 24, and page protected for a week)

    Page: Nachos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754 vandalized by Crasias"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270457231 by Crasias (talk)"
      2. 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 16:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754"
      2. 06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    5. Consecutive edits made from 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 04:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
      3. 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Variations */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Frequently removing and replacing sourced content that identifies Nachos as "Tex-Mex" rather than "Mexican" Crasias (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Both editors blocked Rauzoi for 36 hours and Crasias for 24 (one less revert over the limit). 3RRNO does not cover this. Furthermore ...
    Page protected Extended-confirmed for a week since, as both editors are autoconfirmed only, they will not be able to resume hostilities once the blocks expire. The talk page hasn't been used in months. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:BoneCrushingDog reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Blocked one week)

    Page: Sex differences in intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: BoneCrushingDog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments: Note that these edits fall squarely under WP:ARBGS, and the last (6th) revert was done after they were formally notified. Generalrelative (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:177.84.58.25 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Page already semi-protected)

    Page: Exclusive economic zone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 177.84.58.25 (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 01:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 01:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Eu não sou essa pessoa que você está a citar eu comecei a alterar essa página essa e a minhas primeiras vezes , eu estou alteração está página porque eu gosto de ver a área da ZEE de cada país um abaixo do outro ."
      2. 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "I started changing this page today I'm just making changes to this page because I like to see the Zee area of each country in the world, please don't make changes"
      3. 01:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "I started changing this page today I'm just making changes to this page because I like to see the Zee area of ​​each country in the world, please don't make changes"
    2. 00:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Eu não vou mais fazer alteração se deixar o Rankings by area porque eu gosto de Rankings by area"
    3. 00:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "ZEE com alteração perfeita"
    4. 00:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Alterei o tamanho da zona exclusiva econômica do brasil porque a ZEE aumentou em 2024"
    5. 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Antes essa página sofreu alteração incorreta, com eu fiz uma alteração mais correta ."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    We discover this week that random numbers were changed a while ago. We changed them back and sort of started a discussion User talk:Maxeto0910#EEZ

    Comments:

    We are not sure what they are doing...... Think they're mistaken continental shelf for EEZ.Moxy🍁 01:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:2A01:4B00:D10A:6700:C8CB:A681:5BFA:C14D reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Already blocked)

    Page: Harti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2A01:4B00:D10A:6700:C8CB:A681:5BFA:C14D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Enterprisers */"
    2. 02:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Royalty */"
    3. 02:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Enterprisers */"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 02:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) to 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 02:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Royalty */"
      2. 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Politicians */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */ new section"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    and again here, here and here

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