Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive495

User:Blazing73 reported by User:Skitash (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Marinid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blazing73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:
Edit warring against numerous editors while attempting to impose their version of the article. Skitash (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • There are no valid reasons for this other than that my modification was rejected without any clear reason. You were offered to discuss the topic on the discussion page, but you refused this arrogantly because you did not understand the topic and do not listen to others editors WP:Listen. Blazing73 (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Blazing73, I can see without my glasses on that you were edit warring against three other editors. You're lucky that ToBeFree had a wonderful dinner with apple pie and ice cream for dessert, because I would have blocked you site-wide. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

      @Drmies For the second time you really need to read this Wikipedia:No personal attacks Blazing73 (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

      @Blazing73 that's not a personal attack. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

      If I had said that, I would have been banned. Blazing73 (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Selbsportrait reported by User:Czarking0 (Result:Declined)

Page: Department of Government Efficiency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5

Comments:

Full disclosure I have also been editing the page and some of these are reverts of content I added. I have also been removing content from the page. I do not think my edits constitute edit warring but recognize my own bias in that judgement.

Pinging some users which may have interest here @FactOrOpinion, AnonymousScholar49, and Horse Eye's Back: Czarking0 (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I have raised edit warring and WP:OWN concerns regarding this article with Selbsportrait before. I advised them to take a step back, they appear to be doubling down instead. That being said this does appear to be more technical edit warring than serious direct back and forth edit warring... The sheer volume of their contributions makes it hard to tell though. I also do not see a warning at Talk Selbsportrait. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I added the an3 notice. If you look at the page history you will see he deleted it. Unless that is not what you meant and I am supposed to add something else? Czarking0 (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You're supposed to warn the user that they are violating 3RR, or about to do so, if they continue to revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok maybe I misunderstood something or did not read something I was supposed to? On WP:3RR the only mention of warn I see is in the paragraph that begins If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited given that this is a contentious topic, Selbs is not a new editor, and has already been warned about his conduct on by Horse's Eye on this page, I determined that Selbs was aware that edit warring is prohibited. In that case I understood the guidance on 3RR to mean that I should go here Czarking0 (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Two things. First, at the top of this page, it says "If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing subst:uw-3rr on their user talk page." Second, if you follow the instructions on how to create a report, which apparently you didn't, there's a spot for you to provide a diff of that warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't interpret "consider warning them" as "you must warn them." If it's intended to be a requirement rather than a consideration, then the wording should be changed. I also don't see a requirement on WP:EW. It does say "If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy ...," but Selbsportrait is clearly aware of the policy (e.g., their user page says "Talk pages may improve the entries they're meant to improve, but only as a last resort. ... Its main use is to avoid edit wars"). WP:EW likewise encourages talk discussions to avoid/resolve edit wars, and the form here also asks for a "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page." So I understand the decline. That said, I agree with Horse Eye's Back re: "WP:OWN concerns regarding this article ... The sheer volume of their contributions makes it hard to tell" if they're edit warring. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Where's the 3RR? Selbsportrait (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Declined per above. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Grace1624 reported by User:Faster than Thunder (Result: Declined)

Page: Mark Odhiambo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Grace1624 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC) "My height information"
2. 22:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 20:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Among others Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 22:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel that this is a bit over the top right now? Nobody posted a conflict of interest notice until now [9]. You also added a death date that was for a different person [10]. I would have suggested waiting to see how they respond to the coi notice. Knitsey (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Faster than Thunder, you're possibly one mistake away from a block for disruptive editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

How am I close to a block? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 00:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

User: PayamAvarwand reported by User:Skitash (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Persian Gulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PayamAvarwand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12] "Stop to maniupulate the truth!"
2. [13] "It is not important what the president of a country thinks or says about a historical truth"
3. [14] "Just once mentioning of [Arvand Rud] is enough!"
4. [15] "Please STOP to ignore my Identity!"
5. [16] "“Arvand Rud” is a much older name for that water."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Comments:
This is not exactly a 3RR violation but it's clearly edit warring and disruptive. The editor is deleting noteworthy sourced content and an alternative name in the lede that was added as a result of an RfC. Judging by their comments,[20] their edits seem to be based on WP:JDL. Skitash (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The content, what I removed, was not relevant. such NEWS are not important.

Arvand Rud is Important, because that is part of the history. PayamAvarwand (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours by The Bushranger.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Algirr reported by User:Skitash (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: South Yemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Algirr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

Comments:
I'd like to note that this isn't the editor's first time engaging in disruptive editing. See their edit history in Fall of the Assad regime, Hafez al-Assad, and Arab Cold War. Skitash (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I repeat for the hundred thousandth time, we had a discussion, I had the last word there, and if you are unable to scroll down the list of discussions, it is not my damn problem and not my damn fault. Algirr (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I literally went to sleep 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

moreover, your pointless claim about Hafez al-Assad is pointless. It didn't reach the edit war, and I attached sources, while my opponent needed several attempts to read the article and find the mentioned details, after which he said that this source, because it is a blog, is not a relevant resource (he didn't even say this since the first his re-edit) Algirr (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on their three messages in that discussion,[29][30][31] it doesn't seem like @Abo Yemen agreed with you at all. Skitash (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as I understand, my counterarguments don't have to be taken into account? Algirr (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am not joking, I also disagreed with him (what a surprise, right?) and gave my arguments, if you suddenly didn't notice Algirr (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

regarding the "fall of the Assad regime". Can you please remind me WHICH and WHOSE collage was approved for posting? And WHO was the first to change and divide it, although they had neither the right nor the justification for this in the form of creating a consensus? Algirr (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  • This personal attack speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

    The fact that you are responding after the ban, and to the message that was written because of the ban, also speaks for itself. Algirr (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

    It's not a ban, it's a short block that you described as an unjustified, bastard behavior on the part of the moderators. M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

    @EvergreenFir Besides the personal attack, could you please check the edit history in Assadism? @Algirr resumed edit warring the moment they got unblocked. Skitash (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

    I'll keep an eye on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

    Thanks. I forgot to mention they're edit warring on Military junta,[32] Ba'athist Syria,[33][34] and Military Command Council[35] too. Skitash (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

    "No thanks, if you want add it yourself. I hope your grandfather is okay" Seems like another personal attack.[36] Skitash (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that it was a personal attack. He was probably trying to be nice, but the language barrier wasn't helping 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  wait i've just opened the link and I'm confused. I thought that you were referring to this comment of his [37], which is exactly like that edit summary 😭 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Algirr reported by User:Skitash (Result: Blocked 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [44]

Comments:
This editor has made four reverts on Assadism alone less than 24 hours after getting unblocked (see the earlier report above). They've also resumed edit warring on military junta[45] and Ba'athist Syria.[46][47] Skitash (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

User:184.98.223.248 reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Eddie Holman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.98.223.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [54]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Savydeal reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: Blocked one month)

Page: Shivangi Joshi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC) "This message is special to does who doesn't know what is media and artistry image For actors, an "artistic image" refers to the overall visual perception and style they project, encompassing everything from their physical appearance, clothing, and hairstyle to their vocal delivery and on-screen or stage presence. It's how they portray a character's personality, style, and social standing through a carefully crafted persona."
2. 03:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC) "This message is special to does who doesn't know what is media and artistry image For actors, an "artistic image" refers to the overall visual perception and style they project, encompassing everything from their physical appearance, clothing, and hairstyle to their vocal delivery and on-screen or stage presence. It's how they portray a character's personality, style, and social standing through a carefully crafted persona."
3. 03:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC) "Its just personal Opinion all actor have there artistic image. Then remove Hina Khan also."
4. 03:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC) "Its not promotional as all actors and actress has its artistic image including Alia Bhatt, Hina Khan, Nia Sharma. Eastern Eyes and time are notable category. So please don't remove it. And if you remove this I will remove all other actors including Hina Khan, Jennifer Winget, Alia Bhatt."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC) "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Shivangi Joshi."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Numerous warnings given on their talk page. CNMall41 (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month. Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

User:CarterSchmelz61 reported by User:Nemov (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Flag of South Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: CarterSchmelz61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC) "Updated short description"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is in a slow edit war. The editor was warned last month not to make the change again without finding consensus. Nemov (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Per WP:3RR: "Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Correct me if I'm wrong here: Being involved in a "slow edit war" doesn't qualify to be reported here, not even in a gap of one month. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Yes it can. WP:EW is very clear that users do not have to violate 3RR or 1RR to be edit warring. In this case these edits have been all the edits to the article for the last month or so. It has been noted as well that this user has been editing for a while but has ignored multiple requests to discuss these edits. The user's talk page shows a long history of warnings and CTOPS alerts that suggests this has been a long time coming. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. Thank you for correcting me here. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case Am I okay rolling that article back to the status quo? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure you are. US State Flag is a good short description; Flag of SC practically duplicates the article title. See WP:SDEXAMPLES, where Mississippi is formatted this way. (Agreed on the edit warring block, though) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Onemillionthtree reported by User:Tercer (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Orders of magnitude (temperature) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Onemillionthtree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]
5. [59]
6. [60]
7. [61]
8. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63][64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [66]

Comments:

I'm not a party to any of the content disputes involved, I'm just trying to slow the editor down and get them to reach consensus with others. To no avail. Tercer (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I do think it's worth noting the user's response to receiving a warning for WP:EW is to get quite upset about the idea of being in a war zone--I actually considered WP:ANI for this: [67]. Sesquilinear (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

These two edits are also concerning: Calling another user a 'servant' MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Lawrence 979 reported by User:Danners430 (Result: )

Page: Woolston railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Lawrence 979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC) "Partially reverted edit (for now) as the 'monday-saturday only' mention is a legimate mention, in that there are indeed no Sunday Southern services"
2. 13:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290225880 by Murgatroyd49 (talk) See your talk page"
3. 13:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290224224 by Murgatroyd49 (talk)"
4. 12:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC) "Added a source to Southern's timetable"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Murgatroyd49 "/* Woolston station */ Reply"

Comments:

User has opened a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject UK Railways, but I’m concerned he is still reverting after being told not to and has now reached 4 reverts Danners430 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

That fourth edit is nothing to do with that topic which we are having the discussion about, but you reverted it anyway just because it had my name on it, despite that edit purposely excluding Netley station from public page (it is in the code, but the typical reader will not see that information). There are many cases where stations don't have sunday services, or even saturday services, so consequently mention "Monday-Saturday only" in the infobox, and consequently is legitimate information for any reader, provided it follows existing precedent. Also with some of those reversions, that was done after the issue of the edits being unsourced was resolved by me by providing a source from a trusted website (Southern Railway's official website). Even if it isn't the most clear source, the information can be found within, and I have also found the PDF variant (covering until December 2025) where the information can be accessed more easily by using ctrl+f and typing in Netley (which appears twice, once for a morning service and once for an evening service), so that may be a better source potentially. Lawrence 979 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Your fourth edit literally has the edit summary “partially reverted edit”… we’re discussing the content dispute as we speak. Danners430 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I said "partially reverted", because the only section I reverted was a side-edit which should have really been on the article since June 2024. The whole section we are discussing was not reinstated to the article following the dispute. Lawrence 979 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan reported by User:58.99.101.165 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290347965
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290345903

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#Hello._This_message_is_being_sent_to_inform_you_that_there_is_currently_a_discussion_involving_you_at_Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring_regarding_a_possible_violation_of_Wikipedia's_policy_on_edit_warring._Thank_you. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Inadequate_sources

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#Hello._This_message_is_being_sent_to_inform_you_that_there_is_currently_a_discussion_involving_you_at_Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring_regarding_a_possible_violation_of_Wikipedia's_policy_on_edit_warring._Thank_you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.99.101.165 (talk • contribs) 14 may 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

• Joshua Jonathan made two reverts; there seems to be IP address hopping involved. When Joshua Jonathan stopped, Ramos1990 joined and edit warred with edit summaries telling others not to; they're Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The page is semi-protected for a year to prevent further IP address hopping. Neither Joshua Jonathan nor Ramos1990 should restore the disputed content; if it is the result of a consensus, others who helped building it can do this job. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is fair:

• This IP reverted me two times diff, diff, for which I warned them at their talkpage diff, diff;
• then they reverted Ramos1990 diff;
• after that, IP 2904 reverted Ramos1990 diff, edit-summary "Pov pushing by two usual suspects ad infinitum." This is likely a sock of User:DangalOh, who's following me around using various 2409 IP-adresses; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DangalOh
• when they were reverted, IP 58 removed another source diff. On top at that, they started noticeboard-hopping; see User contributions for 58.99.101.165.

And notice also Talk:Christ myth theory#Non-academic sources, where IP 58 objects against using blog-posts, while none were removed. User:Slatersteven asked "what blog is being talked about?", which reminded me that blogs by Ehrman and Hurtado were discussed at Historicity of Jesus: diff, diff, Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Ehrman and Hurtado. It looks like this IP is not new. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Preventing the other side from editing the article for a year isn't fair enough to your side? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Grownarwahl reported by User:Magitroopa (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Pig Goat Banana Cricket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grownarwahl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]
5. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [75]

Comments:
Prior to my involvement in this, Carlinal had already reverted a few times and warned the user regarding adding unsourced info in the article. Despite this, even when I had begun reverting their unsourced edits within the article, the user is continuing to revert their unsourced edits in without any edit summaries whatsoever. Magitroopa (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Patapsco913 reported by User:Bon courage (Result: No violation)

Page: Cancer Alley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Patapsco913 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts; Reversions on 13 May

1. First revert to replace table @ 12:17.[77]
2. Second revert to replace table @ 13:52.[78]
3. Third revert to replace table @ 16:01.[79]
4. Fourth revert to restore other just-removed material @ 19:56.[80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see [82]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [83]

Comments:

What is the "other just removed-material" in the alleged fourth revert? It looks like Patapsco just found a better source for which counties constitute Cancer Alley. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Within that edit, for example putting back the "The "alley" later grew to encompass ..." text sourced (as before) to [84], or (wrongly) reverting the word "rebutting" back to "refuting", among other restorations. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Please note that I added the table on 27 April 2025 [85] which was removed on the same day unbekownst to me [86] I was cleaning up some Louisana items and stumbled across the edit which used "undue/primary" as the reason so thinking the concern that the table was too prominent, I collapsed it and added it back. Also, the US census is used on nearly every single geography in the US despite being a primary source as it is seen as the gold standard in population data (just look at any city or county). I did not see it as controversial since the section I edited was related to the racial and ethnic makeup of a section examining environmental racism in the geography deemed to be Cancer Aleey. The data I added gives the reader the info on the geography and does not make a value judgment. I did post on the talk page for discussion and he made something up about not using "primary sources" despite a long established practice of doing such regarding the US census.Patapsco913 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You can disagree; that's fine. But why did you keep adding the material despite the disagreement? And why then did you go on to blanket revert other edits/improvements I made to to the article – why for example revert "rebutting" back to "refuting"? It's edit-warring where none of the usual exemptions apply. Bon courage (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

There was a talk page and we were talking. You removed the data supporting what counties Cancer Alley was composed (I presume so my table would then be unsupported since there was no citation for the counties comprising Cancer Alley); and then removed qualatative sources that environmental racism is being alleged (I presume since the racial and ethnic compostion of the parishes involved would not be relevant is there is not allegations of environmental racism).Patapsco913 (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't answer either of my questions. You were aware of WP:EW and WP:ONUS yet went to 4RR and here we are. Again, why did you revert improvements like the rebut/refute correction? Bon courage (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

So you are going to hang your argument on subtle word meanings between using "rebut" and "refute". It was part of a larger edit restoring the list of parishes in Cancer Alley as well as a map indicating such which you dseem to be unecessary.Patapsco913 (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Well. let the administrator make his judgment. We have a talk page to discuss this. I disagree with your position on not being able to use census data to show population composition and the requirement that I can only used wholly verified medical references to determine what parishes make up Cancer Alley.Patapsco913 (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The only issue here is whether you were edit warring in a way not exempted by policy (e.g. to remove defamatory biographical information). The fact you don't seem to care about "subtle word meaning" (actually not subtle) in your haste to reverse my improvements, compounds the issue here, alongside your attempt to personalize and obfuscate.[87] Bon courage (talk) 12:34, 14 May 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. In the strictest sense as I am not quite sure that the fourth edit counts as a revert, and edit warring on the page has stopped since you began sniping at each other about whether you were edit warring here. Which is yet another example of a phenomenon we see here entirely too much—the discussion at the report page which, had it taken place on the article talk page, might have obviated entirely the need or perceived need to file the report.

That said, I will not be so sanguine, nor do I imagine another admin would be, if this behavior persists from either of you. The above discussion evinces a clear breakdown of the ability to assume good faith on both your parts, and that is never a good thing. If this is what we see more of in the future, sanctions on both of you can be expected. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

User:JamesMcCloy11 reported by User:LaffyTaffer (Result: Indefinitely pblocked; subsequently indefinitely blocked sitewide)

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

User being reported: JamesMcCloy11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290590873 by LaffyTaffer (talk)"
2. 18:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290589177 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
3. 17:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290471509 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
4. 23:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290433928 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Longmont High School."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Longmont High School "/* Recent additions to the Music section */ new section"

Comments:

• Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Changed to a sitewide indefinite block because of vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Kellycrak88 reported by User:Tieonetwo (Result: Declined OP blocked for socking)

Page: Baronage of Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kellycrak88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff 1290701421 → 1290699314

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff – 16 May 2025 13:49

2. diff – 16 May 2025 02:05

3. diff – 16 May 2025 02:05

4. diff – 16 May 2025 02:04

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kellycrak88&oldid=1290713028

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tieonetwo

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kellycrak88&oldid=1290760727

---

Comments: User has made four reverts in 24 hours, reverting good-faith improvements without discussion. These edits are not based on policy or consensus and appear aimed at enforcing a personal version of the article.

This is not an isolated case — the user has engaged in similar disruptive reverting behavior on multiple occasions, often weekly, targeting the same article and other users' contributions without constructive dialogue. A pattern is forming that violates not only WP:3RR but also the broader spirit of WP:EDITWAR and WP:CIVIL.

• Declined. The diffs listed are wrong. The filer is disruptive enough to block, but I'll wait for the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afiléon.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• I've blocked Tieonetwo for  Confirmed socking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

User:72.86.246.107 reported by User:NacreousPuma855 (Result: Blocked 1 year)

Page: List of programs broadcast by ABC (American TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.82.246.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [90]
2. [91]
3. [92]
4. [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [N/A]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [95]

Comments:
Constantly adding unsourced material. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 year ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

User:2003:D3:FF31:2CDD:8BC1:5095:92A0:8828 reported by User:Gommeh (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Kaos (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2003:D3:FF31:2CDD:8BC1:5095:92A0:8828 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[96]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [[97]]
2. [[98]]
3. [[99]]
4. [[100]]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102] Discussed on the person's talk page, it's up to them to justify their edits since they were the one who started it. Edits made no sense to me and the person refused to even attempt to justify them until after they had already received several warnings.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [[103]]

Comments:

• • This is an inappropriate report. User Gommeh has repeatedly been making unhelpful edits, all without edit summaries. They are trying to impose US terms onto a UK article.
  • User Gommeh has been advised of the valid reasons for the edits yet ignores these and continues with their unconstructive & unexplained edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:FF31:2CDD:8BC1:5095:92A0:8828 (talk)
• I explained to you why the edits you made were unhelpful on your talk page several times. Additionally you did not bother telling me about the difference in wording until after you had already received several warnings. What you should have done is discussed it on the article's talk page, added it in the edit summary of another edit (which granted you did eventually do but should have done in your first edit) or sent me a message on my talk page. It's up to you (the editor who makes the first change) to justify it in the edit summary, otherwise it is liable to be reverted. The edit warring notice specifically states to not edit war even if you think you're right. In other words, you need to take the initiative to discuss it on the talk page to reach a consensus with other editors, not simply revert back to your preferred version. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

You did not make explanations. You made multiple reverts with no edit :*My edits were appropriately explained. You ignored comments on a talk page. You are trying to force a US term onto a UK article. You have made false claims of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:FF31:2CDD:8BC1:5095:92A0:8828 (talk)

• Your user talk page specifically says the reverts were made because they were perceived to be vandalism. After you received your first one, if you believed your edits were correct then you should have calmly explained "we use a different word in the UK" in your reply or in your subsequent edit summary instead of simply calling my reverts unhelpful and careless, as you did at [104] and [105]. See our policy on assuming good faith. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• You did not make explanations. You made multiple reverts with no edit. My edits were appropriately explained. You ignored comments on a talk page. You are trying to force a US term onto a UK article. You have made false claims of vandalism. You are edit waring. You have exceeded 3RR. You are trying to Gaslight me: the errors rest with you, not me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:d3:ff31:2cdd:8bc1:5095:92a0:8828 (talk)

• 3RR does not apply to perceived vandalism. The multiple warnings I added to your user talk page should have been more than sufficient for you to know what was going on and why your edits were reverted -- they seemed disruptive. Which you responded to by trying to accuse me, who has spent a significant amount of my time on Wikipedia combating vandalism, of vandalism. Instead of calling my edits unhelpful, an acceptable response to them could have been something like "hey, just wanted to let you know that the UK uses a different word, sorry if you didn't know the difference, have a nice day." "Reverting an unhelpful edit" is in itself not helpful without context or an explanation - while your edits (after I did some research) seemed correct with regards to the wording used to describe what we in the US would call a season of a TV show, you needed to have said so in your edit summary; something like this would have been perfectly OK: "reverting - we use a different word for that here". Your comments were mean. Once again, I'll mention WP:AGF. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Pleaee stop trying to gaslight me. My edits were valid and supported by edit summaries. Your edits were unsupported by edit summaries, and you made false claims of vandalism. And giveh my edits were not vandalism 3RR does apply. Mean comments??? Such as false accusations of vandalism made by YOU.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:d3:ff31:2cdd:8bc1:5095:92a0:8828 (talk)

Please start signing your posts with ~~~~ Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 19:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@user:2003:D3:FF31:2CDD:8BC1:5095:92A0:8828 please use the four ~ characters to sign your edits, or use the reply link. WP:sighow MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:SIGHOW, weird that wp links don't like lowercase Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 19:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note that the IP user continues to edit war, now with a someone else. There doesn't appear to be any attempt at article talk page discussion by anyone at all. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note that I am not edit waring with 'someone else'. Note, my edits were supported with edit summaries. Note user Gommeh made multiple edits without supporting edit summaries. Note user Gommeh made false accusations of vandalism. Note I have made appropriate comments about edits on my talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:FF31:2CDD:8BC1:5095:92A0:8828 (talk)

• This is the continuation of the same reversion-spree on the article- reverting so quickly and reflexively that they reverted someone who agreed with them.

• The IP shows no sign of slowing down and attempting to be WP:CIVIL even after I set up a talk page section for them to explain the change, and after the reporting editor said that they no longer object to the change IP is warring over. The insistence on not using Reply or inserting a signature here suggests WP:CIR. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  For convenience:

  Diff of reverting edits before realizing the editor agreed with them [106][107], they have since apologized to Ivebeenhacked for what it's worth, but not to Gommeh.

  Article talk page section containing more IP incivility and apparent inability to sign their posts after repeated instructions on how to do so. Talk:Kaos (TV series)#Whether to use 'series' or 'season'. If I'm to take them at their word that their disruptive behavior is unintentional, I have to agree with CIR. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 21:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. While their edits were in good faith, and even turned out to be correct, their incivility towards me and inability to abide by basic Wikipedia guidelines can't be overlooked. At best, WP:CIR applies here; at worst WP:VANDAL. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 22:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Barry Wom and anonymous offender reported by User:2800:E2:B880:799:D89:7175:9869:4321 (Result: IP user's range blocked six months along with reporter as block evader)

Page: 20 July plot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Barry Wom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and anonymous using different IPs

Previous version reverted to: [108]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [109]
2. [110]
3. [111]
4. [112]

Comments:
I want to report these users who are engaged in this absurd edit war. One can evade blocks as often as they want, and Barry Wom, a longtime user, isn't setting an example by reporting this war and stoops to the level of the offender. It can't be denied that the offender writes well and provides the correct sources, but this war must still stop. There was no attempt at conciliation, nor was there a warning of three edits, not even on the users' pages. Both deserve to be blocked indefinitely. 2800:E2:B880:799:D89:7175:9869:4321 (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. The 179.1.219.192/30 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Otherwise, I consider this report malicious as, since the reporting IP has only made these two edits and resolves to central Colombia as well, I suspect strongly that it is the same block evader (notice the utterly unnececssary praise for the IP who "writes well"—yeah, even without looking at the RevDel'ed edits you can see this is someone who really rises to the occasion) so I will be blocking that /64 as well. (And, yes, reverting a sock of a banned or blocked user is sort of another time it's OK to go beyond 3RR). Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

So, according to you, it's about ignoring Wikipedia's rules to spoil the party for an offender. That's what administrators are like; they annoy someone else while the other offender goes unpunished, doing whatever they want, and pretending to set a good example, but ultimately causing more problems than they claim to solve. 2800:484:738C:FAF0:9D72:6451:F5A2:7B0 (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BANREVERT. It actually says that in black and white, that anyone may revert edits by a blocked or banned user "without regard to the three-revert rule". And if you're an offender, just what party are you supposed to be having? (Not that it's really going to matter what you have to say as I have blocked your /64 for two weeks for obvious block evasion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Bon courage reported by User:P. M., Cat Appreciator (Result: OP page blocked two weeks)

Page: Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bon courage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation&diff=prev&oldid=1287284055 ] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [113]
2. [114]
3. [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116] he warned ME actually on my talk page, but i warned him that i would "take this to some authority" here: [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: reference to earlier discussions and requests for justification in earlier diffs on main page, and he replies with 'yup', 'as before'

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [118]

Comments:
On 24 April the user User:Bon courage removed paragraphs of material referenced and attributed to studies by federal agencies, references to these studies in newspapers of record, systematic reviews in very reputable journals, etc., with such comments as "over-emphasis in lede" (without moving to lower section) and "nothing here is accepted knowledge" in the aftermath of a talk page discussion some months prior, in which no consensus to remove the material was reached, such that there was no discussion in the article of dose-dependent neurotoxicity of fluoride to young children. I restored the material, and the user User:Julius Senegal reverted me with "there is no consensus to keep it" (that is not how this works !!!) - the same user in December of 2024 removed entirely the reference to a recent National Toxicology Program with the comment "please abstain from your POV editing". Apparently by 1 February a "consensus lead edit" had been agreed to, and there was no edit warring until, as I mention, in April, User:Bon courage removed paragraphs of referenced material, which I restored three days ago with examination and discussion of previous events "removing paragraphs of referenced material due to 'over-emphasis' without moving/replacing and without consensus"; "did not achieve consensus, and made this edit hours BEFORE starting new discussion at WP:FTN", whereupon the same User:Julius Senegal also reverted me, so that it would remain out of the article. I engaged both users in discussion in revision comments (asking for justification etc) and received brusque replies and reference to earlier comments. The above mentioned users refuse to actually provide justification for exclusion of these studies from the article. P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Looks like a WP:BOOMERANG might fly; the OP has reverted five times ([119],[120],[121],[122], [123]) against two different editors, in only slghtly over the designated 3RR period. And the article's an FA, whch has its own policies governing stewardship, as well as WP:ONUS more generally. OP, should you, then, withdraw this? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  Not only that, during their revert spree they have failed to discuss on the Talk page where I (and others) have put our position in detail. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's not accurate. The OP has reverted 4 times, three on May 16 and once on May 14, which is well out of the 24-hour period (the last two diffs listed by Fortuna imperatrix mundi are consecutive and count as only one revert). Although this report is a bit stale because all the recent reverts occurred yesterday, both editors have reverted 3x in a 24-hour period.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Policy dictates and pertains, P. M., Cat Appreciator. FAOWN, ONUS, V, CON and EW all come to mind. The OP has failed to discuss major changes to a Featured Article (FAOWN); check. The OP has repeatedly inserted material they know to be controversial (ONUS); check. The OP has repeatedly inserted poorly sourced material (V); check. The OP has failed to seek consensus on the talk page, even though there s an open discussion (CON); check. They have edit warred over a period of days against multiple editors (EW); check. BonCourage, how much else will they be allowed to get away with, I wonder? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

My hope is they will move to the article Talk page rather than attempt to proceed through a combo of reversion and dramah board. Bon courage (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to report this "new" user P. M., Cat Appreciator for edit warring myself. Now he is abusing the system in sense of WP:GAME. Efforts for talking to him failed as usual.

Can we checkuser this "new" user for repeatably bad faith attempts?

I see no intention for a collaborative work, instead he wants to push his POV and if he again is banned, a new user name will appear repeating this game. --Julius Senegal (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have evidence of socking, including another user/account, take it to WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on the boomerang, in context Bon courage's conduct merits a trout at worst but P. M., Cat Appreciator's conduct looks much more like problematic edit warring... Especially as Bon courage appears entirely willing to have a talk page discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked the reporter from editing the article for two weeks and am unwilling to block an experienced editor for dealing with a new account's violations of WP:ONUS in a featured article, so someone else can make a final decision and close the report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:387:F:6C31:0:0:0:4 reported by User:JavaHurricane (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Bounce (Aaron Carter song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:387:F:6C31:0:0:0:4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Aaron's Party (Come Get It)"
2. 17:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Aaron's Party (Come Get It)"
3. 20:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Aaron's Party (Come Get It)"
4. 20:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Aaron's Party (Come Get It)"
5. 20:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Aaron's Party (Come Get It)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bounce (Aaron Carter song)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Similar disruptive edit warring at Special:PageHistory/I'm All About You and Special:PageHistory/Oh Aaron (song). JavaHurricane 21:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Rosaelisil4 reported by User:Mikejuliao (Result: Wrong Wikipedia)

Page: Campeonato Sudamericano de Fútbol Sub-17 de 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rosaelisil4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=166923896

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=166853094
2. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=166923896
3. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=167073950
4. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=167349458

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=167269441

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025#c-Mikejuliao-20250517203200-Reversiones_injustificadas_y_posible_vandalismo_por_parte_del_usuario_Rosaelisil

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Rosaelisil4 == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == [[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you.

Comments:
The user has carried out multiple reverts (undo) of my edits without providing valid justification, neither in the edit summaries nor on the article's talk page. Specifically, they are removing links to stadium pages that have been a standard practice in all editions of this tournament on Wikipedia, across all languages. Their argument of “saving code” has no editorial basis and is not supported by any style guideline. I believe this behavior disrupts collaboration and may constitute a violation of the edit warring policy. Mikejuliao (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

El usuario ha realizado múltiples reversiones (undo) de mis ediciones sin dar justificación válida, ni en los resúmenes de edición ni en la página de discusión. Particularmente, está eliminando enlaces a páginas de estadios que han sido práctica común en todas las ediciones del torneo en Wikipedia, en todos los idiomas. Su argumento de “ahorrar código” no tiene fundamento editorial ni está respaldado por políticas de estilo. Considero que esta actitud entorpece la colaboración y puede constituir una violación de la política de guerra de ediciones. Mikejuliao (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Declined Wrong Wikipedia. Mikejuliao, you seem to be looking for es:Wikipedia:Tablón_de_anuncios_de_los_bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/3RR/Actual. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

User:77.161.162.69 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 77.161.162.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Stop spreading non sense and fake news just because it's "sourced". Make your due diligence or don't touch on subject you don't understand."
2. Consecutive edits made from 09:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC) to 09:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 09:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "See previous explanation"
   2. 09:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Mix of game engine not technically exist, stop spreading false information"
   3. 09:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC) to 21:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 21:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Like it or not, there is no such thing as using two engine, it wouldn't compile. You don't have the knowledge to argue obviously so why modifying without substantiated data?"
   2. 21:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Development */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC) to 16:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 16:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "It's retarded to think/claim that a game is made with two different game engines."
   2. 16:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered."
2. 04:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP user that doesn't understand that a video game uses two different video games engines. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit-warring continues. The bit that the game uses two engines is sourced, one for gameplay and for graphics. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

You obviously have zero knowledge on the subject and I already told you that "sourced" doesn't mean truth. You are knowingly spreading fake news at this point. I already explained to you that a game cannot run on two engine. You don't know the difference between a framework and an engine, that is your problem. Ignorance isn't an excuse. 77.161.162.69 (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

77.161.162.69, fortunately, we don't need to discuss individual users' knowledge when discussing Wikipedia content, as Wikipedia is built on secondary sources and doesn't publish personal knowledge. If secondary sources known for their editorial oversight report something, we can add it to Wikipedia articles relying on their interpretation. If something factually wrong seems to have been added to an article but is properly sourced, you'll need to contact the source and get it changed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

User:92.20.112.81 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Stale)

Page: Creature Commandos (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 92.20.112.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290788914 by Alex 21 (talk)"
2. 02:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "TV articles do not typically include genres in the lead, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:TVGENRE"
3. 02:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290787367 by Alex 21 (talk) sorry has to be undone"
4. 01:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "it's a rule that you cannot add the word superhero to the televison shows which is stupid but that's just what i've been informed of."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Creature Commandos (TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP has been warned plenty of times and has edit warred at various superhero television articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Declined as stale. While 3RR was violated on Creature Commandos (TV series), the IP has not made any edits since being warned about edit warring by both you and me. If either editor resumes edit warring, I think blocks are more than justified. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't want him to be bitten as a newcomer, so I didnt want him to be on ANI. I do think I might be a good idea to check if its sockpuppetry just incase as he is locked deep in one subject and with certain behavior (of course not evidence but just precaution).

I misread the talk page, I thought you were another victim but you were just doing the same as me. I wouldn't have sent as stern warning as a message but it is still justified. JamesEMonroe (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. This is why vandalism runs rampant. Two accusations of potential sockpuppetry, but it's "stale" after only six hours. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The only other IP address I've seen mentioned in today's discussions as being potentially the same editor hasn't made an edit for almost two months. That's not exactly evidence of sockpuppetry. If there is evidence of sockpuppetry, someone can make a report at WP:SPI. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Update about the IP: they stated in their talk page that they will stop editing (diff: [124]). To be honest I don't quite understand this person's ideas and intentions, or why they were so defensive regarding their edits. Anyhow we will see how that goes. The Sophocrat (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Sophocrat: Thanks for the update. I don't really know either, and I am not sure whether this was their first time editing, but if they were new, they were not exactly welcomed by the community (see WP:BITE on explaining reverts, assuming good faith, etc.). The determination that a user is a sockpuppet or vandal should depend on evidence rather than it being the default assumption for new users. Also, plenty of helpful contributors started off with some pretty rough edits. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, that definitely didn't happen; proceeds to edit less than four hours later. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex 21, the page is currently protected until 20 May 2025; the most recent edits have not been reverted. Does a need for administrative action remain? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

A page protection should certainly help. Many thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Surfsup1967 reported by User:Triggerhippie4 (Result: No violation)

Page: Canaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Surfsup1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [125]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [126]
2. [127]
3. [128]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [129]

Comments:

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. Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

User:71.115.78.70 reported by User:Toast1454 (Result: Already blocked)

Page: F1NN5TER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 71.115.78.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC) "🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕"
2. 13:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC) "🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕"
3. 13:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC) to 13:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 13:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC) "Message about your edit on F1NN5TER (level 2) (AV)"
2. 13:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Already blocked. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Koppite1 reported by User:HorrorLover555 (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Cowboy Carter Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koppite1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [130]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [131]
2. [132]
3. [133]
4. [134]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [137]

Comments:

• User had demonstrated that they refused to follow WP:BRD and had attempted to violate WP:STONEWALL after being told by both myself to go and discuss in the article's talk page first several times and Livelikemusic here. They appear to have started a report on me in the noticeboard to falsely accuse me of edit-warring despite the evidence I provided stating otherwise, in an attempt to poison the well and cast false apersions. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:HorrorLover555 reported by Koppite1 for edit warring

Page: Cowboy Carter Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Constantly reverting longstanding edits without consensus. Rather than responding to my questions on the article's talk page (asking why a factual statement is deemed puffery), HorrorLover555 was rather make this report prematurely (as i had already stopped reverting and have actually joined the discussion of the article's talk page BEFORE this whole issue was referred to this notice board)

Koppite1 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment It should be noted that you had started it first, and had refused to follow WP:BRD nor engage in the discussion that was already taking place. The only thing I have done is contribute beneficially and follow the procedures of discussing on the article's talk page. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think you started it first by reverting my edits. What you should have done was seek consensus first because those were long standing factual edits. However, we both want to avoid a ban, so i suggest we stick to the talk page and try and resolve the issue. Koppite1 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  Then why didn't you discuss first before starting a 'back-and-forth'? HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  You should ask yourself the same question. Koppite1 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  Seeing as you had started it, in which Livelikemusic had stated that it had been contested multiple times in this edit summary here, why do you believe you don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else on this website? HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Combining with the above section. Both users blocked for 24 hours. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

And they are lucky you made the block and not me. I usually block users for longer for this kind of runaway edit warring that long ago blew past 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Homecow reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: 1999 East Timorese crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Homecow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 103.130.130.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC) by 103.130.130.115

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
2. 16:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
3. 02:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
4. 03:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
5. 04:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
6. 05:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
7. 06:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
8. 06:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Opm581
9. 11:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC) Homecow reverted Opm581
10. 23:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Melbguy05
11. 10:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Melbguy05
12. 11:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Homecow reverted Chipmunkdavis and Less Unless
13. 11:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Homecow reverted Melbguy05
14. 14:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Homecow reverted Chipmunkdavis
15. 17:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Homecow reverted Toddy1

103.130.130.115 was blocked for disruptive editing on this page at 06:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC) for 31 hours, and again at 10:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC) indefinitely. But as you can see, Homecow simply carried on the edit war.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
User talk:103.130.130.115 06:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Homecow 11:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 18:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely Likely sockpuppetry. Considering protection. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Luke.haddad120 reported by User:Mitch minty (Result: Both indefinitely pblocked)

Page: Centre des Archives Nationales (Lebanon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luke.haddad120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [138]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [139]
2. [140]
3. [141]
4. [142]
5. [143]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [144]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [145]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [146]

Comments:

• Both indefinitely pblocked from editing the article. The two have been edit-warring for months, and it would appear that for both it's the only article they're interested in.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

How to get someone else to look? Is a low traffic article. Other user seems to be using to promote someone with unreliable backdated source. Now I can't revert that even though I follow rules about talk page. Mitch minty (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Ariadne000 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked 72h)

Page: Gone with the Wind (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ariadne000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291491756 by Betty Logan The Betty Logan account is bogus: 22:02, 16 February 2010 WereSpielChequers talk contribs deleted page User:Betty Logan (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP) (thank) This account exists to make bad faith edits and revert other editors. It exists to make reversions and bad faith commentary on other editors."
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC) to 15:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 14:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291433663 by Betty Logan (talk) "Betty Logan" is a bogus attack account and doesn't get an opinion.."
   2. 15:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC) "edited photo sizes and captions NOTE: Precisely because GWTW is so iconic, photos are warranted."
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC) to 01:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 01:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC) "Added photos from Wikimedia Commons with captions highlighting characterizations"
   2. 01:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC) "adjusted photo size"
   3. 01:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC) "adjusted photo size"
   4. 01:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC) "Edited caption"
   5. 01:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC) "edited photo caption"
   6. 01:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC) "edited caption"
   7. 01:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC) "edited captions"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Excessive number of images added to the article */ Reply"

Comments:

Editor is contributing in bad faith and is WP:NOTHERE to constructively build an encyclopedia civily. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked Ariadne000 for 72h, mainly for the personal attacks against Betty Logan, partly for the incompetence behind their reasoning for calling Betty Logan a "bogus account", and partly for being non-collaborative.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Lemonademan22 reported by User:NJZombie (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Sabu (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lemonademan22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [147]

Diffs of the user's reverts: May 11 Death date reverts

1. [148]
2. [149]
3. [150]

May 12

1. [151]
2. [152]
3. [153]
4. [154]

May 13 At this point the reverts switched to birth date reverts

1. [155]
2. [156]

May 14

1. [157]
2. [158]
3. [159]

May 15 At this point, they're reverting the death date again, along with reverting the birth year due to once source questioning the year of birth.

1. [160]
2. [161]
3. [162]
4. [163]

May 17 Now the reversions over whether his name is Terry or Terrence begin, along with reverts over place of birth.

1. [164]
2. [165]
3. [166]
4. [167]
5. [168]
6. [169]
7. [170]

May 18 After that last May 17 edit, I placed a 3RR warning on the user's talk page, which was ignored.

1. [171]
2. [172]
3. [173]
4. [174]
5. [175]
6. [176]
7. [177]

May 19

1. [178]
2. [179]
3. [180]
4. [181]
5. [182]
6. [183]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [184]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [185]

Comments:
Article subject died on May 11. Since that time, Lemonademan22 has been in a consistent edit war multiple users, both anonymous and registered, over the subject's birth date, death date, place of birth, and birth name. While discussion does occur on the article's talk page, the reversions continue relentlessly with no actual consensus being reached before doing so. I have not taken part in said talk page discussions but other than one edit correcting what I thought was an age error made by a different user, and one where I made the same revert Lemonademan22 did concerning a unconfirmed death date at the time, I have not taken place in reverts. User has been warned, as have others who have taken place in the edit warring, but the warning was ignored. While I have no stake in either side of any aspect of the changes, the edit warring from all involved needs to cease. Some of those other editors have been blocked but Lemonademan22 has not, despite being the most consistent abuser of 3RR concerning this article. Most, if not all of these disagreements could have been solved with providing the best sourced info and adding a note stating that the information provided is disputed. To be clear, I'm not debating the information Lemonademan22 is adding or removing. I'm calling out the disregard for edit warring. NJZombie (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@NJZombie This is a vile misrepresentation of my work. I have done NOTHING wrong. I have been personally attacked twice: [186] [187] which Ymblanter thankfully blocked temporarily.

I reverted original research, unsourced claims, violations of WP:SYNTH, and backed up my edits with appropriate sources, as well as follow Wikipedia's rules to the fullest. I decided to WP:IGNORE your warning for the benefit of Wikipedia, would you rather have original research, unsourced claims and nonsense ranging from "his sister knows better than the New York Times" to "Sabu's friend said this", while smoking a joint might I add? No.

Hilariously, you didn't even sign the "warning" on my talk page, I had to do it for you: [188] did you really care about giving me the warning in the first place? Why did you say one thing and nothing else? Why are you singling me out and no one else? Also, worth noting is you never even participated in the talk page discussion.

I have emphasized time and time again that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia ran by adults, not a fan wiki ran by children, it should be respected and should have appropriate sources, formatting, and shouldn't work on heresay. But of course, the editor that actually wants to help Wikipedia and expand it as an encyclopedia is the one getting reported? Sounds fair right? I will leave it at that. Lemonademan22 (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Lemonademan22, you are right about Wikipedia's purpose, and WP:3RRNO #7 exists. It allows you to remove, without discussion and without having to care about the number of reverts, contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to [WP:BLP].

To
remove.

Not to add new material. Not to restore disputed content (WP:BLPRESTORE forbids this even for a single revert). Not even if you are 100% sure that the material is factually correct.

Please keep this in mind in the future. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I will, thank you for the warning. Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

User:QubeChiba reported by User:Илона И (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: When Life Gives You Tangerines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: QubeChiba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [189]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [190]
2. [191]
3. [192]
4. [193]
5. [194]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I posted warning at her User's post page without template but she deleted it

Her undo of my edits:

1. [195]
2. [196]
3. [197]
4. [198]
5. [199]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [200] [201][202]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [203] (she deleted it)

Comments:

Yesterday I added in Impact part of series Kim Seon-ho's smile challenge. She undo it stating it is not neutral and too detailed. She didn't open topic at Talk page or ask me to rephrase it, just deleted it. I reverted her undo, stating that WP:DUE didn't apply here. She undo it again by deleting most of it. I made Talk topic abt Impact part at series Talk page. She never answered me while editing this page whole time, I tagged her twice bcs I opned 2 Talk topics.

Today she still didn't answer me at Talk page, later the same day I added second footnote proving popularity of Kim Seon-ho's smile challenge not only in China, but also overseas, which she yesterday edited out. She undo it stating wp:OVERKILL.

I undo it and answering: "WP:OVERKILL didn't apply to this case it is 2 different sources, one in Korean and one in English. Read, please again what WP:OVERKILL means. Or open discussion thread at Talk page."

Then I opend Topic abt this problem at series Talk page and went to her page and posted warning abt her WP:OWN behaviour and [WP:3RR].

But then she again undo my edit and demanded: "You don’t need two citations for a phrase. Choose one since either summarizes that it’s popular anyway. Again, this is the extraneous and non essential details clutterj" and "No need for two citations for a phrase. Choose one since either summarizes that it’s popular anyway. Again, this is the extraneous and non essentials that gives it WP: UNDUEWEIGHT".

So I went to report her here, I am aware that in the heat of the moment I also was participate in WP:EDITWAR and can be blocked but I can't stand such gatekeeping, bullying and WP:OWN behaviour. Yes, she is quite good editor, but she also behaves like this series page is her own and only she knows what need to be there. We have equal rights. Also, she threatened other editors while deleting their editors with wrong applied Wiki rules. My adding of 2nd footnote didn't fell under WP:OVERKILL and her own WP:DUE is quite questionable.

She always said in her edit's note that I need to open Topic at Talk page but allowed herself deleted my edits just like that.

She also behaved like this earlier this year for other editors, I checked Edit history.

She makes many small edits to this page and in process coonstantly changes and delete info that other users added and transfer this page to one she wants to see. Other opinions not accepted. Илона И (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

QubeChiba, this is indeed too much. If you need to edit the article undisturbed by other editors for a while, you can create a copy in the Draft namespace. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

BTW she also posted First warning at my Talk page abt my first addition to Impact part abt Kim Seon-ho's smile challenge, which was perfecrly fine only, mb a bit to detailed if you really want to niptick. In answer I posted in her Talk page that she need to reread what Overlink rule is meant to be, bcs I also understand it wrongly before (I thought abt it as WP:OVERKILL) and she deleted other ppl fotnotes with reference to Overlinking. Илона И (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Илона И, your message is hard to read because of unusual abbreviations I'd avoid when communicating in a professional manner about an encyclopedia. Thank you for the information, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I remembered last rule variation name that she threw at me but by WP:OVERKILL I meant Wikipedia:Citation overkill and by Overlinking - when you putting to many interwiki links in article. Илона И (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, I hope in the future she will engage in dialogue not only in authoritan Edit note but also at Talk page and we would be manage to find consensus Илона И (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Bill.shipsey reported by User:Idg2025 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Anjhula Mya Bais
User being reported: Bill.shipsey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user has reverted 3 times within a 24-hour period, violating WP:3RR. The edits involve re-adding content that lacks encyclopedic relevance and is unsourced or poorly sourced.
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anjhula_Mya_Bais&diff=1291686138&oldid=1291677840
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anjhula_Mya_Bais&diff=1291668234&oldid=1291666152
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anjhula_Mya_Bais&diff=1291661985&oldid=1291659410
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anjhula_Mya_Bais&diff=1291645025&oldid=1291630359

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill.shipsey#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anjhula_Mya_Bais

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill.shipsey#Notice

Comments:
I received accusations on my discussion page from this user just for having generated my profile to modify information that I understand to be in breach of Wikipedia's rules. It would appear that his interest in editing is not encyclopaedic. Thank you for any action you can take to prevent abuse.

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that Idg2025 also violated WP:3RR and may be a single-purpose account created to remove this information from the article in question. Account creation yesterday and only edited this article.

Some of the information reverted did violate WP:GRAPEVINE, so the reverts might be legit? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks MilesVorkosigan, I'll take these reverts as close enough to WP:3RRNO #7 to not justify a block. However, the page is extended-confirmed protected now anyway and both editors can't edit it anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Bildete reported by User:XYZ1233212 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Portal:Current events/2025 May 22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291780088 by XYZ1233212 (talk) the second candidate Trzaskowski will be interviewed on Saturday, Mentzen it's really dealing this election from his 3rd place and using new media for that very significant event in political marketing"
2. 09:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "widely discussed, and Mentzen with 15% votes come with his 8 points program, Trzaskowski also will be there for interview. It's making Mentzen a kingmaker and unprecedented candidate using new media with success that was also broadcast by all network tv live too"
3. 08:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291768755 by 2A02:8084:4F43:8E00:5538:BDAB:A65D:1F77 (talk) unregistered user removing without reason"
4. 08:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Notable, 3,6m views now, It was live broadcast by all tv stations TVN, Polsat, TVP, Republika. Trzaskowski will also come to him on Saturday, making Mentzen XYZ1233212 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)kingmaker"
5. 22:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC) "More sources and link to YouTube interview itself now 3,3 million views"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:7FB0:8530:D9E5:61C1:CC26:1FC2 reported by User:Doniago (Result: /64 range blocked for two weeks)

Page: Tremors 2: Aftershocks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:1700:7FB0:8530:D9E5:61C1:CC26:1FC2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [204]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [205]
2. [206]
3. [207]
4. [208]
5. [209]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Tremors 2: Aftershocks."
2. 03:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tremors 2: Aftershocks."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Thomas Rosales Jr. as an oil worker */ new section"

Comments:

IP edit-warring; page protection may also be reasonable. DonIago (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• /64 range blocked for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

User:VirtualVagabond reported by User:King Ayan Das (Result: Blocked 24 hours and alerted to CTOPS)

Page: Kargil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VirtualVagabond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous versions reverted to: For the first revert 12:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC) and for the second revert 13:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC), 14:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
2. 14:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [210]

Comments:

The following article is a Contentious topic and is subject to a 1RR restriction.
As you can see, the same user reverted my edit within 24 hours of their previous revert, which constitutes a violation of the 1RR policy. This action does not fall under any of the exemptions listed in WP:NOT3RR. King Ayan Das (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Also alerted to CTOPS due to their many edits in the WP:CT/IPA topic area. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Truthmattersalot reported by User:TonySt (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Marthe Cohn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 02:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 02:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Bibliography */"
4. 02:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Marthe Cohn."
2. 02:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Adding commentary to an article on Marthe Cohn."
3. 02:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Adding commentary to an article on Marthe Cohn."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not sure if this is best for WP:AN3 or WP:AIV. User account only exists to repeat personal allegations against Marthe Cohn on the article for that subject. Flagged while doing WP:RCP. Per WP:3RR I won't be reverting the latest edit since it can be argued that this falls just short of "obvious" vandalism. —tony^{st (talk)} 02:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It’s not vandalism if it’s accurate and can be verified. I noticed that whenever you don’t like something that’s been written you call it vandalism. I looked at your history. 2603:8001:B100:F484:F416:E45D:6632:E03 (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not vandalism if it's not clearly being added in bad faith. However, it's edit warring to repeatedly attempt to re-add it—and that's before considering the WP:BLP implications of the claims that are not cited to independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Liyo123 reported by User:S0091 (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page: Shivangi Joshi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Liyo123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291830256 by S0091 (talk)"
3. 17:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291828843 by CNMall41 (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC) to 17:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 17:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "These information general information that does not require to be added in lead paragraph. So stop vandalizing or else u will be Blocked."
   2. 17:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "These information general information that does not require to be added in lead paragraph. So stop vandalizing or else u will be Blocked."
5. 16:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1291794012 by FlakyCroissant (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Shivangi Joshi."
2. 17:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Shivangi Joshi."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is only the second time I have filed at EWN so apologies if I did it incorrectly. I reverted once trying to get them to start a discussion on the talk page after two editors disagreed via reverts and left them the "soft" EW notice but their reaction was revert me so I left the hard warning . At the same time they left me a note stating I needed to start the discussion but I am not the one trying include the disputed content. The edit warring stopped yesterday but then they added their changes again today. They were reverted again by another editor (who may have also violated EW but they have not been sufficiently warned) then they requested page protection for "vandalism" (WP:Requests for page protection#Shivangi Joshi). S0091 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Savydeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Foodie 377 reported by User:Orientls (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: 2025 India–Pakistan conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Foodie 377 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:[211]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:38, 24 May 2025 Foodie 377 - Undid revision 1291932964 by Orientls (talk)WP: RHETORIC. Wikipedia does not endorse or encourage rhetoric and strong wording. Rhetoric does not belong in Wikipedia
2. 10:22, 25 May 2025 - WP:RHETORIC, WP:DRAMA, WP:POPCORN, WP:INACCURACY, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. This hyperbole has no place in Wikipedia.
3. 11:01, 25 May 2025 - Undid revision 1292133136 by Orientls (talk) Refrain from edit warring. Discuss in Talk page. WP does not endorse WP:RHETORIC, WP:DRAMA, WP:INACCURACY
4. 11:19, 25 May 2025 Foodie 377 - Undid revision 1292136152 by Wareon (talk) I have started the relevant discussion on the Article's Talk page. Please reach WP:CONSENUS before unilateral edits
5. 11:37, 25 May 2025 Foodie 377 - Adding text that inadvertently got deleted in the crossfire

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [212]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [213]

Comments:

The presence of this account on this article has been entirely net-negative. They have falsely labelled constructive edits as "vandalism" while restoring copyright violation[214] which they added themselves.[215] Earlier, they mispresented a source,[216] and then made 2 reverts to retain it.[217][218] Orientls (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

A revert had to revert something, not just add it (they seem to be at 3RR right now). Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

[[219]] (inaccurate edit summary) [[220]] [[221]] (with an ironic waring about edit warring). , Ohh wait 4RR [[222]]. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The second "R" is for "rule". Being at X "RR" makes no sense. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

User: Michalsenv reported by User:Mellk (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Khmelnytsky Uprising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michalsenv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [223]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [224]
2. [225]
3. [226]
4. [227]
5. [228]
6. [229]
7. [230]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [231]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [232]

Comments:
No response on talk page. Mellk (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Mellk, the warning for edit warring specifically was after all the edits, but they don't seem to care anyway, and they'd need to find their talk page before continuing to edit. Czech98006 should have informed the user using {{uw-ew}} or {{uw-ewsoft}} instead of edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this warning was placed before they last edited. Mellk (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m sorry I’m new and I don’t know every guildelines. This won’t repeat again Czech98006 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

And I didn’t get any warning Czech98006 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the assurance, Czech98006. I have removed your 24-hour partial block. Michalsenv has now also found their talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Alexnewmon2623 reported by User:Fdom5997 (Result: Indefinitely pblocked)

Page: Mohegan-Pequot language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alexnewmon2623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&oldid=1292474049

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292383837
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292414385
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292431521
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292451820

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohegan-Pequot_language&diff=prev&oldid=1292414385

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fdom5997#Mohegan-Pequot_language

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexnewmon2623&diff=prev&oldid=1292475470

Comments:
This user had removed the information on the language page, without any discussion in the talk page with other users (or linguist-users) first before doing so. I tried to discuss with the user that the phonology and grammar was studied and published by a certified linguist who had worked closely with other linguists to do work on the language. But then they kept arguing with me about the info being "outdated" and kept removing the cited info on the language page. Then they even went as far as making false claims that the language revitalization project had "multiple issues with [their] research" and then claimed that the linguist was "let go" because of it. And then they mentioned the name of a linguist who they falsely claimed was doing the core-work of the language revitalization project, but had actually (according to my research) worked on a totally separate language, not this one in particular. Although they (the linguist of the different language) are only *aiding* other linguists in publishing different children's books on this language, not doing the actual core linguistic work.

• Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Afm2105 reported by User:Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Dawn of the Dead (2004 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Afm2105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 22:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
3. 20:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Went bak to prior version. "Unnecessar" is an OPINION"
4. 17:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Dawn of the Dead (2004 film)."
2. 04:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Dawn of the Dead (2004 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 04:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Last prt of plot */ reply"

Comments:

User specifically threatened to violate WP:3RR further despite initiating a talk page discussion trying to resolve the issue. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, you have edit warred. Whether that includes three or four reverts doesn't change that you have edit warred. Thanks for stopping, joining the talk page discussion opened by the other user and coming here instead of reverting further. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Anj8888 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Miss Possessive Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Anj8888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1292586624 by Livelikemusic (talk)"
2. 19:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1292585893 by Livelikemusic (talk)"
3. 19:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1292585299 by Livelikemusic (talk)"
4. 19:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Miss Possessive Tour."
2. 20:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 20:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Social Media */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

User:NRO Constellation reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Pageblocked)

Page: All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "It's on the talk page. Please feel free to engage there. The comments are from the then-vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and current Secretary of State). You cannot censor Rubio's comments merely because they are from source that you and your colleagues deemed unreliable. There is no original research. Thanks."
2. 01:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Deleting an interview with the then-vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and current Secretary of State) because it was via NewsNation is outrageous."
3. 01:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "No Original Research - Clarifies that, per congressional mandate, AARO is required to investigate allegations of unreported UAP programs. Quotes directly from AARO's director and key senators who established AARO with the specific intent of investigating "firsthand" claims of unreported UAP programs."
4. 23:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Current AARO investigations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This is on a contentious topic, user was previously notified. Also simultaneously edit warring at Remote viewing and Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit). - MrOllie (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=edit&section=8#

• Blocked – for a period of 1week from the articleAcroterion (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

User:NoMoreBu11 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: John Ioannidis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: NoMoreBu11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1292712621 by MrOllie (talk) They absolutely do not. The article: "How to Handle Reasonable Scientific Disagreement: The Case of COVID-19" cites Nicholas Taleb, that is hardly conclusive considering his personality and constant use of ad hominems. The other source is a Wired article about the perceptions of undergrads (or rather the journos perceptions of undergrads perceptions). Great sources."
2. 11:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1292711117 by MrOllie (talk) The content hardly supports the claim, it's is a slanderous accusation."
3. 11:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1292706792 by Bon courage (talk) Great argument. You're going to need a bit more proof to label someone a conspiracy theorist. Words have meaning."
4. 10:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "A single paragraph from a 5-year old article on a deeply controversial subject. Quite a lot has changed of our understanding of the pandemic and the lockdowns since 2020."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring about labelling of COVID-19 misinformation. Editor was also informed of COVID-19 contentious topics restrictions here. MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The issue has clearly been discussed at length in articles talk page, yet the slanderous and false sentence still remains on the article lead. It completely misrepresents the person in question. Provide a better source of your claims instead of wasting the admins time. NoMoreBu11 (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note this has been discussed at length on the article Talk page, and the editor being reported – while apparently aware of that – has made no attempt to engage in that discussion, but has simply edit-warred their way to 4RR. Bon courage (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:1012:A123:C269:65FC:7F21:1B7A:9A9F reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Page semi-protected)

Page: James Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:1012:A123:C269:65FC:7F21:1B7A:9A9F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Too many to list them all. Semi-automatic reporting tools cannot help. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

/32 should get p-blocked from James Tour for edit warring, spanning from 20 May 2025 till 28 May 2025. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:1015:B03A:A184:7C69:4EFF:FED3:4575 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: X (Def Leppard album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:1015:B03A:A184:7C69:4EFF:FED3:4575 (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 22:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC) to 22:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 22:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Background */"
   2. 22:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 22:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC) to 22:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 22:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on X (Def Leppard album)."
2. 22:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on X (Def Leppard album)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Lovebury reported by User:Some1 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Generation Z (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slow motion edit-warring and addition of unsourced content on multiple pages by Lovebury. Templated them for not using edit-summaries (which they're still not using after that message) and now they're mis-using the "minor edit" checkbox. They have been warned in the past about the addition of unsourced content and (have been blocked for) disruptive editing. Some1 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – One week for long term edit warring at Generation Z and other pages. User has been blocked previously and seems to ignore feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Carloseow reported by User:MimirIsSmart (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1291789117]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1291834025
2. Special:Diff/1292470010
3. Special:Diff/1292475089
4. Special:Diff/1292746650

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1292978892

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1292897955

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1292979528

Comments:

Editor reverted all attempts to uphold MOS on the page without violating 3RR. While I appreciate changes and corrections to my edit, editor has attempted to disregard my edits with reversions and noting it to be a "change of scope", despite the article itself containing numerous MOS problems I had attempted to fix. MimirIsSmart (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@MimirIsSmart I’d like to clarify that after your initial changes were reverted, the appropriate next step per the WP:BRD cycle was to open a discussion on the article’s talk page. Instead, you continued reinstating your version without seeking proper consensus, despite concerns raised about scope changes and content sourcing. A discussion is already underway at Talk:Sokoban, and I encourage all involved to continue addressing the issues collaboratively there. Carloseow (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected by User:Daniel Case for 3 days. - Aoidh (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Nightfarerzero reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Elden Ring Nightreign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 08:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC) to 10:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 08:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Added soulslike"
   2. 10:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added information"
   3. 10:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed typo"
2. 05:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */It's reliable information from the game itself."
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC) to 05:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 04:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Made it easy to under"
   2. 04:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed some errors"
   3. 05:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed some errors"
   4. 05:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed typos"
4. 04:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added plot with spelling improvements"
5. Consecutive edits made from 01:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC) to 02:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 01:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Added more flow"
   2. 01:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added capital for words"
   3. 01:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added more info on Shattering"
   4. 02:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed a typo in the editd"
6. Consecutive edits made from 23:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC) to 23:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 23:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed lowercase"
   2. 23:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added dark souls"
   3. 23:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added caligo title"
7. Consecutive edits made from 21:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC) to 22:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 21:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "Added information like prequel"
   2. 21:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */Added the setting and plot"
   3. 22:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Removed an error"
   4. 22:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */Added the link to elden"
   5. 22:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added a typo fix"
8. Consecutive edits made from 15:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC) to 15:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 15:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added content"
   2. 15:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */Added info"
   3. 15:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
   4. 15:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added information"
9. Consecutive edits made from 14:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC) to 15:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 14:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added plot"
   2. 14:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed error"
   3. 14:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed typo"
   4. 14:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "Added prequel"
   5. 14:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */"
   6. 14:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Added content"
   7. 14:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed typo"
   8. 14:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Setting */Fixed"
   9. 15:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */Fixed"
10. 13:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Plot */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style)."
2. 04:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Re"
3. 05:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Re"
4. 05:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Elden Ring Nightreign."
5. 05:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Newly created account with the single purpose of adding a huge chunk of plot to a recently released video game. All their edits are about Nightreign and they use an inappropriate tone and style. Messages and warnings haven't worked and they continue to add the plot bloat. Not a single response. Perhaps a competence issue or refusing to get the point. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:1000:B129:83A:417D:D8DE:3AD7:E2A7 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Ammar Campa-Najjar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:1000:B129:83A:417D:D8DE:3AD7:E2A7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"
2. 01:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "Let me repeat myself: you removed validly sourced information, lied about said source being unreliable, changed your argument from when there was supposedly no source, and then repeatedly removed said information without obtaining consensus on talk. As the editor removing sourced information, it is your responsibility to obtain consensus."
3. 00:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "You have failed to respond on the talk page. You have also failed to cite where in BLP this statement is violated. You have removed a reliably sourced statement with no reasoning other than “respect BLP,” after failing to respond on talk to how this clearly doesn’t violate BLP at all. This is after you moved the goalposts from months ago, claiming that there were no reliable sources. The onus is on you to obtain consensus to remove a clearly cited statement that doesn’t violate BLP. Dozens of..."
4. 20:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC) "Source literally says it verbatim, not contentious. Bring to talk if there is disagreement"
5. 17:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC) "Uncited removal"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC) "/* "Perennial candidate" */ Reply"
2. 17:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC) "/* "Perennial candidate" */"
3. 01:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "/* "Perennial candidate" */ Reply"
4. 01:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "/* "Perennial candidate" */ Reply"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Crwd-ppu reported by User:XYZ1233212 (Result: Stale )

Page: Portal:Current events/2025 May 30 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Crwd-ppu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293411761 by XYZ1233212 (talk) the discussion hasn't concluded and you are lying about the interim result as one participant has objected to the item's removal. Per guidance, WP:STATUSQUO and WP:ACBF"
2. 12:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293381196 by XYZ1233212 (talk) Responsibility to start the discussion is yours as your changes to the news item (not written by me) are being reverted. Per guidance, WP:BRDDISCUSS"
3. 11:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "Send the news item back to its first version. Yours distorted what the trade representative said and took out important context. Do not make any further changes to the item that we had not agreed to implement"
4. 09:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC) "rephrase information to mirror how it appears in the source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Portal_talk:Current_events#Donald_Trump_Social_Media_Post_on_Tariffs_with_China XYZ1233212 (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

Unwarranted accusations in most recent edit summary "you are lying" & "WP:ACBF" XYZ1233212 (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

My disputant claims [233] the discussion "resulted in all participating editors favoring excluding the entry entirely" when they knew that was not true [234] as I had objected to its removal - that is the literal definition of lying. They also reverted despite being informed of BRDDISCUSS and the ongoing state of the discussion which they inappropriately implied had ended - that, at least to me, meets the standards of bad faith editing. However, looking at the edit warring page (my first time to do so as I haven't had the need to before), it does appear that I have skirted close to the three-revert rule [235], so if administrators here can give me advice on how I can resolve this dilemma, that would be of most help. Crwd-ppu (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Stale The two of you have stopped reverting each other and discussion has carried on with the talk page discussion. Therefore I conclude there's no need for administrator intervention at this time. If you're getting nowhere with the discussion, you could try dispute resolution, but see if the talk page discussion becomes fruitful first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

User:GregGregorino reported by User:Hirolovesswords (Result: Both blocked 1 week )

Page: Lud Wray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GregGregorino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [236]
2. [237]
3. [238]
4. [239]
5. [240]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [241]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [242]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [243]

Comments:

Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week from editing the article. I would have not blocked Hirolovesswords if they'd claimed an exemption like WP:3RRBLP (which isn't possible for someone who died in 1967) or otherwise explained what the problem was in their own words. This didn't happen (per this comment, the discussion had not been concluded), so I have to conclude the edit warring is the fault on both sides. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Qegfkkkuy reported by User:McSly (Result: Pblocked for a week)

Page: Black hole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "The utterly wrong statements about black holes' high density, contained in the article, are completely unsourced."
2. 14:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "I have provided a reliable source. I am not going to discuss anything with idiots"
3. 14:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Discuss with whom? The inane first line of the article, defining black holes as high-density objects, has been here since the beginning of Wikipedia, and nobody noticed"
4. 13:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Provide a reason."
5. 11:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "/* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

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

Actively refusing to discuss and calling other editors "idiots" McSly (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from Black hole for a week. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  How can you block someone from something with infinite gravitational force? Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) @Daniel Case: With a pulsar gun. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Azaadtheking reported by User:PARAKANYAA (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked)

Page: Template:Conservatism US (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293531412 by Trakking (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC) to 05:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 04:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC) "my evidence was his support of the new deal and the taxes and military industrial complex, you cannot give stuff that has not evidence. Additionally you cannot make a rule mandating past only without others agreeing with you"
   2. 05:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 04:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC) "no you gave no evidence he is one other than " he still is one of the major ones". and we need to put major and current"
4. 04:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC) "no eisenhower did not go to any major war, Prefered diplomacy over war, opposed a military industrial complex and supported new deal and kept taxation of 91%, Lincoln was not here either as he had started the abolitionism support within Moderate Republicans and War Democrats."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 04:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Minor figures */ new section"
2. 04:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Minor figures */ Reply"

Comments:

Despite multiple people reverting him, he refuses to discuss on the talk page, despite my attempts. Subject warned of edit warring by Trakking in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Conservatism_US&diff=prev&oldid=1293531412 PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

User:119.18.0.71 and User:TAWikiEdit reported by User:Adakiko (Result: IP blocked for two weeks for block evasion)

Page 1: Amyn Aga Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 6RR+
Page 2: Aly Muhammad Aga Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 5RR+
Page 3: Yasmin Aga Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 3RR+
User 1 being reported: 119.18.0.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User 2 being reported: TAWikiEdit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
EW on 3+ articles.

Diffs of the user's reverts: At least three articles with 3RR

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 119.18.0.71
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: TAWikiEdit

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
119.18.0.71
TAWikiEdit

Comments:

Seem to have been going on for a few days or more. Adakiko (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for two weeks for block evasion. I'll let someone else evaluate whether TAWikiEdit should be sanctioned for edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

User:120.151.86.161 reported by User:TonySt (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Julian Hill (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 120.151.86.161 (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 02:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 02:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 02:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Views */"
   2. 02:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 02:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Views */"
3. 02:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Views */"
4. 02:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Views */"
5. 02:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Views */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Message about your edit on Julian Hill (politician) (level 1) (AV)"
2. 02:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Message about your edit on Julian Hill (politician) (level 2) (AV)"
3. 02:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Message about your edit on Julian Hill (politician) (level 3) (AV)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have no idea who Julian Hill is but this person apparently does not like him and won't stop reverting our removals of blatent WP:NPOV stuff. There's an additional 4th warning on their talk page given by another person who also monitors recent changes that they also reverted after. I have not reverted their latest edit (because 3RR). —tony^{st (talk)} 02:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Warned IP was not specifically warned about edit warring and 3RR EvergreenFir (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

User:41.202.207.144 reported by User:Mbulite (Result: Declined)

Page: Cameroon GCE Board (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 41.202.207.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC) "This user altered and added spammy contents, ultimately trying to scam GCE candidates by falsifying information not publicly verified"
2. 12:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "I have provided a reliable source. I am not going to discuss anything with scammers"

Comments:

Actively trying to sabotage the authenticity of the Cameroon GCE Board by creating fake profiles and claiming to be active members Mbulite (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• The IP hasn't edited since May 18.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Kala7992 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: The Fantastic Four: First Steps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kala7992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ I am including the comments by Shakman on Dr Doom, which should go together with Sneider's claim. This is not edit-warring"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 13:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 13:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293921051 by 2600:1017:B821:F1A1:F032:4FD6:913A:B867 (talk) Undid revision – contradicted by director’s statement; WP:STATUSQUO doesn’t apply when new evidence challenges inclusion"
   2. 13:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293922206 by Kala7992 (talk)"
   3. 13:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ As a comprise I re-added the Sneider source and mentioned Shakman's comments. However, the quote in InSneider states "the character being first introduced in a mid/post-credits sequence" does not mean RDJ will appear as Doom himself (instead of a sillhouette) so I removed mention of RDJ"
   4. 13:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
3. 11:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293908793 by Adamstom.97 (talk) Claiming "vandalism" without actually proving it or rebutting my points with valid sources isn't "vandalism". My edits are policy-based and this will not stop unless WP:Consensus is reached in light of new evidence"
4. 11:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293908442 by Adamstom.97 (talk) ChatGPT said: Vandalism is deliberate bad-faith editing, per WP:VAND. My edits are sourced, policy-based, and part of an open content dispute, not vandalism. Please stop misusing the term."
5. 10:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293907816 by Adamstom.97 (talk) You have completely failed to refute my arguments based on the added context of Shakman's denial, which is a violation of which is a violation of WP:BURDEN, as the responsibility lies with you to justify inclusion of challenged material with reliable, verifiable sources — especially when directly contradicted by an on-the-record statement."
6. 10:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293905945 by Adamstom.97 (talk) I strongly reject the accusation of vandalism. My edits have been made in good faith and are based on Wikipedia policies such as WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and WP:CONSENSUS. I have not "ignored talk page messages", I’ve engaged in discussion and outlined my reasoning, including responses on the talk page. Please avoid using inflammatory language."
7. 10:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293905482 by Adamstom.97 (talk) WP:BURDEN material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, especially if it's speculative or poorly sourced must be supported by reliable sources or may be removed. WP:STATUSQUO also doesn’t apply if the existing version is being challenged in good faith and on policy grounds. My edits are not edit-warring but part of a legitimate dispute"
8. 10:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293903804 by Adamstom.97 (talk) Archived discussions are not permanent proof of consensus. Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus can change, especially when new sources, policy concerns, or context arise, which is the case here. Relying on old archives without re-evaluating new developments (such as a public denial from the director or debunking of a source) is not a valid substitute."
9. 10:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293903219 by Adamstom.97 (talk) no new consensus has been reached since Matt Shakman explicitly stated that Doctor Doom will not appear in the film. Per policy, the burden of proof lies with those seeking to include contested or speculative material, especially when it conflicts with a clear, on-the-record denial from the director."
10. 09:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293902380 by Adamstom.97 (talk) I have looked throughout the talk page and nowhere in this article do I see WP: Consensus over Jeff Sneider, only someone else who questioned Sneider's inclusion. Also as I have stated the director personally denied Dr Doom would be in the film https://ew.com/the-fantastic-four-first-ste, And there needs to be consensus on whether that debunks Sneider"
11. Consecutive edits made from 09:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 09:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    1. 09:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ I added a better source for Mole Man, since Joseph Quinn confirmed Mole Man is in the movie"
    2. 09:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "I put an entry in the talk page, consensus should be established before including a post credit scene rumor as a casting announcement. Otherwise that is a stain on Wikipedia's credibility to verify correct information"
12. 08:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ What is the point of including scoopers like Jeff Sneider as a source for casting? Only base casting off of official confirmed sources, not unconfirmed rumors."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Fantastic Four: First Steps."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Exclusion of Jeff Sneider’s unverified claim based on Matt Shakman’s direct denial */ Reply"
2. 14:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Exclusion of Jeff Sneider’s unverified claim based on Matt Shakman’s direct denial */ Reply"
3. 14:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Exclusion of Jeff Sneider’s unverified claim based on Matt Shakman’s direct denial */ Reply"
4. 14:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Exclusion of Jeff Sneider’s unverified claim based on Matt Shakman’s direct denial */ Reply"

Comments:

Recent persistent edit warring content dispute against the current consensus. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 14:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I won't edit war anymore. Since I have received a warning I have ceased edit warring, and previously simply believed I was acting according to Wikipedia policy. However this will stop now. Also I edited due to what I perceived was inadequate with Wikipedia policy, and provided all of my reasoning in the Talk Page of that wiki article. However, I have reached a fair compromise now and will not edit anymore on that page.

I understand that my actions crossed the 3RR threshold. I genuinely believed I was following policy regarding WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, but I now realize I should have been more patient. I will not make any further changes without consensus and will work through the Talk Page going forward.

Also, it is worth clarifying that my edits were based on new, potentially conflicting information which emerged after the original consensus was established. Additionally, the editor I was in disagreement with referred to an archived consensus but did not cite or link to it directly when I asked, which made it difficult to verify whether that consensus still applied in the current context. Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus can change in light of new evidence or sources. My intent was to reflect this updated context while still engaging on the Talk Page. I now understand that I should have waited for broader agreement before making multiple reversions and will not continue editing the article without consensus. Kala7992 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

No, Kala7992, this has been your approach the last time ([244]), edit warring and then saying you'll stop in the last minute before a block. You knew what you were doing, you knew it was disruptive, and I'm not buying your promise to not do it again in a few months. You can request an unblock explaining how the current situation is different from back then, why the warnings and own promises didn't prevent what happened today and why we can be sure that it really won't happen again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

User: Bloxzge 025 reported by User:Mikewem (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: 2025 Boulder fire attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bloxzge 025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [245]
2. [246]
3. [247]
4. [248]
5. [249] previous version is [250]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Bloxzge 025#June 2, 2025 informal warning, did not use template, nor invoke 1RR/3RR

[251] ctop alert for 1RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2025 Boulder fire attack#Motive Talk:2025 Boulder fire attack#statement fails verification

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [252]

Comments:

There are other edits from Bloxzge 025 on this page that could be reverts, but these 5 are the most straightforward. Additionally, the editor appears to have made 4 reverts to List of terrorist incidents in 2025 within the same past 24 hour period. Mikewem (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Shuaib Shukri Alias reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: No violation)

Page: Benz (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Shuaib Shukri Alias (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 09:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 09:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 09:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "I HAVE ADDED MORE"
   2. 09:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Benz */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continuously adding unsourced info to the article. Also made the ridiculous claim of being in contact with the producer. If he really is, then he has leaked the producer's plans that he hasn't officially announced. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:25, 4 June 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. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

User:122.106.2.164 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: No violation)

Page: Jack Haley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 122.106.2.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293945485 by FlightTime (talk) i did add source?"
2. 16:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293944081 by FlightTime (talk) i int hange picture, as for info a link is aed next to it."
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 16:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 16:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "a reference and sources"
   2. 16:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "space/"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jack Haley."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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. The two edits that lead to the still-current version are counted as one. The original edit reverted to does not count as a revert. FlightTime, you would be within rights to revert again, although I understand why you might not. The talk page has not been used in over three years. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Daniel Case, while I'm fine with a report not being actioned due to a lack of a 3RR violation, I'm not sure if I can agree with telling someone they're within rights to edit war... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, usually most people report after their own third revert has been reverted. Reporting in this situation, where really there have only been two reverts, kind of wastes our time here IMO. Especially when they haven't used the talk page in a situation where the IP's edit summaries indicate they'd be willing to discuss. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, sure, that's fine with me. I'm not complaining about that! :D My concern is purely about "you would be within rights to revert again", which I don't think FlightTime is. But I have hopefully resolved that by protecting the page and restoring a stable revision, which is something we can of course do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to take action on the user's mind set and the sense of "No my edit stays" and before I go too far and violate 3rr, which is easy in the moment. I'll try to keep this discussion in the future. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Lowkey50 reported by User:Czello (Result: Pblocked from article, 1 month)

Page: John McGuirk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Lowkey50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC) "Outdated and unreliable sources used. Refer: WP:BLP, WP:NOV and WP:V."
2. 17:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293941740 by Czello (talk) Correct, since there was no consensus reached, the information posted is intentionally misleading and does not fit in line with. Refer to WP:NPOV, WP:V and especially, WP:BLP."
3. 15:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293918843 by Czello (talk) Has been discussed in talk with extensive debate, conclusively, the arguments for inclusion of it are inadequate for it to remain. The sources as mentioned previously are completely erroneous, bias, and completely unreliable. Refer to: WP:RS"
4. 12:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Outdated, bias and untrue sources about the alleged. Both sources are also from obscure online publications who are not members of the Irish Press Council."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on John McGuirk."

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

• Partial blocked from John McGuirk for 1 month. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

User: Czello reported by User:Lowkey50 (Result: No violation)

Page: John McGuirk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Czello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] 12:55, 4 June 2025 Czello talk contribs 17,497 bytes +777 Undid revision 1293918365 by Lowkey50 (talk) should not be removed without discussion first
2. [diff] 16:03, 4 June 2025 Czello talk contribs 17,497 bytes +777 Undid revision 1293936754 by Lowkey50 (talk) There was no consensus to remove this after extensive discussion. Please make your case there
3. [diff] 18:20, 4 June 2025 Czello talk contribs m 17,497 bytes +777 Reverted 1 edit by Lowkey50 (talk) to last revision by Czello
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1294074497 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_McGuirk Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Czello Comments:

User reverted my notice of me placing a warning that they are tagged in edit warring.

The user also is involved in other several breaches of Wikipedia rules and guidelines on the John McGuirk page, such as WP:NOV, WP:V, WP:OR, and especially WP:BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Lowkey50 (talk • contribs)

Note, this is retaliatory report for the one I placed above. OP has violated 3RR (I have not, and have not reverted their last revert) and they have refused to join the discussion on the talk page despite multiple requests to do so. The content in question has been discussed at length, though OP has not contributed that discussion and in fact has overridden it. — Czello ^(music) 12:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out that the "diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" is in fact not that, but instead a link to this noticeboard. I have not edited the article after they posted that on my talk page; this is deceptive/WP:GAMING on their part. The "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" does not link to anything other than the talk page, where OP has never once posted, so they have not attempted to resolve this on the talk page (despite there being a discussion they could contribute to). — Czello ^(music) 12:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The user above is consistently deleting his AN-3 Notice of Edit Warring on his own talk page, they have engaged with 3RR as showcased in the evidence above. The discussion is not a consensus but rather a debate, that was never resolved and never will due to the politicised nature of the article. The comment in the article is in direct breach of WP:BLP. Lowkey50 (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no requirement to keep a template on one's talk page. You'll notice that you also deleted it from your talk page, but I did not mention that as you're entitled to do so.

And no, I have not violated 3RR. Please read WP:3RR.

As for the edit itself, after much discussion there was no consensus to remove - you cannot override that because you don't like it. You still have yet to make your case on the talk page, instead trying to brute-force your preferred version. — Czello ^(music) 12:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor in this dispute with the page on my watchlist; this is a pretty clearcut 3RR violation by Lowkey50, with four reverts in the span of 24 hours. Czello (who actually spoke against this label on the talk page previously, and appears to just be maintaining the consensus version) is correct in linking to the past talk page discussion which did not find consensus to remove it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Lowkey50:, as you're in violation of the WP:3RR, it would be advisable for you to self-revert your latest edition of the page, as WP:EW is pretty clearcut on reverts past the third in 24h resulting in a block. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Another uninvolved editor (in this latest dispute), with the page on my watchlist. Concur with ser!, it's a clear 3RR violation, with disingenuous edit summaries on the part of Lowkey, where they refer to "no consensus". There was indeed no consensus in the last debate on the talk page, but that was no consensus to remove the content, not no consensus to include it. And the fact that sources aren't members of the Irish Press Council is an entirely irrelevant red herring - Irish Central isn't based in Ireland. Nor is the Washington Post or Al Jazeera, but they're still WP:RS that can absolutely be used in Irish articles! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• No violation See above. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

User:216.228.182.154 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Page protected)

Page: Daniel Seddiqui (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 216.228.182.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1294022057 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
2. 02:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293931340 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC) to 12:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 12:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293742305 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
   2. 12:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293742353 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
   3. 12:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1293740936 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Daniel Seddiqui."
2. 03:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Daniel Seddiqui."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Promotional */ new section"
2. 03:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Promotional */ IP inserting content"

Comments:

Needs another revert to remove this blatantly promotional content, but I don't wan to 3RR it myself. ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Qwiogc reported by User:AirshipJungleman29 (Result: Blocked indef as NOTHERE)

Page: Li Ching-Yuen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Qwiogc (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 12:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC) to 12:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 12:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   3. 12:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   4. 12:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 17:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 15:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 15:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC) ""
5. 15:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC) ""
6. 15:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• User talk:Qwiogc#June 2025

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: After the above edits, Qwiogc has twice made an absurd edit, then self-reverted the next minute, at Genghis Khan[253][254] and Laozi[255][256]. NebY (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

User:AHI-3000 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Stale)

Page: Template:SpongeBob SquarePants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: AHI-3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC) "Don't just revert without an explanation"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC) to 18:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 17:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC) "At least give me an excuse or justification instead of reverting without explanation"
   2. 18:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 06:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC) "What do you mean by "too small"? And the other previous version of this template had everything listed in a rather disorganized manner."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC) "Navboxes"
2. 18:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Disruptive editing on navboxes */ re"
3. 18:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

AHI has discovered collapsible subgroups and has decided they should be used in navboxes. Has been reverted several times, doesn't follow BRD or understands that being reverted means there is no consensus. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I have already been cooperating with the issue concerning Template: Castlevania series and reponded to feedback accordingly. Soetermans just decided to revert my edits to a completely different template (Template:SpongeBob SquarePants) without even any explanation. He's also a participant in this edit conflict, and escalated it there, so he's not some neutral third-party observer. Instead of talking it out with me, he immediately resorts to doing this. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The explanation was clear as day: others disagree. That should be sufficient for you, I don't know, not edit war? Have you stopped? No, you did not. So here we are. Same goes for {{Castlevania}}, in which you continue to push for your preferred version. Notifying involved editors Oknazevad and SnowFire. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I've only seen about this due to the recent edits on the SpongeBob SquarePants navbox template, but there appears to have been recent edit warring on Template:Castlevania series as well, with three different users reverting their edits there (two of the other editors notified above). Magitroopa (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Was already coming here to comment re: Template:Castlevania series for full disclosure. I have advised AHI that once he's reverted he needs to keep BRD in mind, and that he should not make any further changes to a live template while discussion is ongoing and instead should create a draft in his sandbox for others to look over. But the part that is the fundamentally disconcerting aspect is the edit summary quoted above "At least give me an excuse or justification instead of reverting without explanation". That's not how it works. As the one proposing the change, he, not those reverting undiscussed major changes, must be the one to give a justification, and said justification must gain consensus. He didn't even bother with an edit summary when he started. That's failing to do the bare minimum. oknazevad (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

AHI-3000, based on Special:Diff/1294277184, I expect you not to edit for the next 24 hours so a block isn't needed to prevent further edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Ponkey2008 reported by User:Ser! (Result: Resolved without action)

Page: Lamine Yamal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ponkey2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff (involving addition of the word "young" to the claim in the lead and removal of sourced content)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 31 May, no edit summary (first addition of claim and removal of sourced content, partially reverted by Seasider53 then further removal of sourced content reverted by me)
2. 31 May, no edit summary (second addition of claim and removal of sourced content, reverted by Seasider53 as unexplained content removal)
3. 31 May, "There is no need for this obvious bias, many pundits have said many things about many players, and that doesnt mean you should just state that they have said "he is the best player in the world". Stop adding that or else I'll keep correcting it" (third addition of claim and removal of sourced content, reverted by Rap no Davinci)
4. 3 June, "I removed some unnecessary details there, as it was set to push one club's agenda! and does not agree with Wikipedia's policies" (fourth addition of claim and removal of sourced content, reverted by me)
5. 6 June, "There is no need to state he won a domestic tremble on the foreword of his page, Even Ousmane Dembele that was very instrumental in PSG's treble doesnt even have it on his foreword. Please stop adding it here thanks❤️" (fifth addition of claim and removal of sourced content)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3 June, including direction towards the article talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "Best (young) player in the world?", no response

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [257]

Comments:
User appears intent on pushing a POV on this page per the edit summaries and has been reverted four times by three distinct users; attempts to guide the user onto the talk page have been entirely fruitless. Per the edit summary in diff 3 they seem entirely intent on continuing to push through their own version. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but this is a situation where I think the edit warrior has a point that everyone's missing.

To wit: The claim he keeps removing is a rather extraordinary claim, all the more so for being inherently subjective, that really, per LEADCITE, should be cited in the intro even if it is already cited in the body (several sections down, where of course casual non-Wikipedian readers are going to stumble right across it). You yourself seem to have understood this issue in the talk page section you opened up a few hours before coming here, before Ponkey might have been reasonably expected to have responded by. And indeed you've been satisfied with this sort of resolution before. I'm deferring any action for now, and of course other admins can do as they will, but I think that maybe sourcing it in the intro would do a lot to end this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Daniel Case: but I don't think you've read this one correctly at all. The claim for the subject being regarded among the world's best did have citations, with four citations present in the lead; this only changed with an edit made after I filed this report. Every single one of Ponkey's edits have all been to versions of the page where the content has been cited. And just to be clear, I opened a talk page section three days ago per the diff you provide; not a few hours as you say above. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

In this very diff that you provided, I see, yes, one cite at the end of the first graf. At the end of the next graf, I see "his performances have led to widespread claims by pundits and players that he is the best player in the world." That was the language Ponkey keeps removing.

And I would probably remove it too. Leaving aside its repetitiveness (just what editorial purpose is served by saying the very same thing we pretty much just said?), we use the very PEACOCK-y (in this context) "widespread" without bothering to cite even one such claim (And no, the single cite for the previous graf does not come anywhere near supporting any reasonable conclusion that these claims are "widespread")

Really, this was very sloppy editing on someone's part, and this is why we should not edit sloppily as it needlessly leads to this sort of situation. I would amend my previous suggestion to consolidating these "best footballer in the world right now" claims to one graf or the other, and following them up with about three of the citations in the body if we wish to continue claiming these are "widespread".

As for the talk page section I was discussing, it was my error. Sorry. But that does not invalidate in any way my larger critique here. (And maybe before warning Ponkey you might have tried posting something similar on their talk page?) Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that acknowledgment on the timestamp aspect. There were four citations combined into one at the end of the sentence - I believe I may have used "citation" rather than "reference" in my response, that's on me. The latter sentence which is essentially a repetition of content in the end of the "Club career" section has now been removed, which is fair enough. I'll implement your suggestion and re-add the citations per WP:LEADCITE and hopefully this solves the issue. Yourself or any other admin are free to close this as no action, as unless the reversion and addition of unsourced content re-ensues I would be satisfied with this. Thanks again, ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks; I think I'll close this here as a block would be tough to justify with WP:3RRNO #7 and WP:BLPRESTORE in mind and the page is already at least semi-protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

 Resolved without action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

User:119.94.167.39 reported by User:Илона И (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: When Life Gives You Tangerines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 119.94.167.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1st case: [258]

2nd case: [259]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [260] I added comparision between later editions so it will be more visible. First I deleted part that she added before due WP:Undue and WP:Peacock
2. [261]
3. [262]
4. [263]
5. [264]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [265][266]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[267][268]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [269]

Comments:

Hello, yesterday I noticed edit by 119.94.167.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that didn't follow wiki rule WP:DUE and WP:PEACOCK I corrected the part that didn't follow the rules with comment Deleted Undue weight not neutral tone. User 119.94.167.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned and Undo my correction with comment restoring quote per reliable source; elaboration (I deleted only craze part). I corrected it again and asked her to make Talk topic. She Undo my edit for 2nd time, without creating Talk topic. I created Talk topic in article Talk topic here [270], undid her revision for 3rd time, went to her page and warn her abt edit warring and ask to discuss at Talk topic the issue [271]. After this she finally replied in Talk topic and I didn't report her for Editwarring but for me this new editor didn't quite understand Wiki rules even when I and other editor asked her to read it. I also asked help from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#When Life Gives You Tangerines because this user accused me of bias and refused to listen and I needed neutral opinion on this issue.

But when I woke up today I noticed that she again deleted edit of Preferwiki (talk · contribs) [272] and after Augmented Seventh (talk · contribs) reverted her deletion she manually deleted it again [273] and violated WP:3RR rule. Because I warn her several times about it, I report this user here.

Augmented Seventh (talk · contribs) also posted warn about WP:Editwarring at my page [274] but I explained him the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Илона И (talk • contribs) 00:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Briandamgaard reported by User:Go D. Usopp (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

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

Previous version reverted to: [275] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [276]
2. [277]
3. [278]
4. [279]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [280]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [281]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [282]

Comments:

User violated 3RR while reverting an edit he disputed simply for vanity without regard for MOS. Go D. Usopp (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  == Personal attack by User:Go D. Usopp – accusation of editing "for vanity" ==

  Go D. Usopp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote the following when reporting me for violating 3RR:

  "User violated 3RR while reverting an edit he disputed simply for vanity without regard for MOS"

  This is an inexcusable, unjustified, and direct personal attack against me. It is not a comment on the content of my edits. I edited the article to improve it. The accusation is false, defamatory, and violates Wikipedia standards of respectful behavior.

  I demand that appropriate action be taken against the user.

  Reference: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

  Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sokoban&diff=1294509786&oldid=1294494367 Briandamgaard (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Invisibleme333 reported by User:CanonNi (Result: 72 hours )

Page: Chan Kin-por (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Invisibleme333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC) "unreliable source 1294827450 by CanonNi (talk)"
2. 01:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC) "Information are from the official website of Chan Kin-por 1294729886 by CanonNi (talk)"
3. 08:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1294699661 by Invisibleme333 (talk)"
4. 08:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1294698010 by Materialscientist (talk)"
5. 07:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1294694102 by MCE89 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. User talk:Invisibleme333#Chan Kin-por

Comments:

Repeated additions of unsourced content. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

User:2409:4080:E38:ECDD:88E8:4D0:728C:5D09 reported by User:Ixudi (Result: 1 week )

Page: Nalanda mahavihara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2409:4080:E38:ECDD:88E8:4D0:728C:5D09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC) "The articles cited are recognised historical texts and copies of Indian Antiquary. Kindly stop removing cited content."
2. 21:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC) "Article was renamed from "Nalanda" to "Nalanda Mahavihara". This content is rightly placed here."
3. 19:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC) "Sources are secondary and authentic enough. Reverting removal of sourced information."

1. 02:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC) "The articles cited are recognised historical texts and copies of Indian Antiquary. Kindly stop removing cited content"
2. 11:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC) "Removal of sourced information"
3. 11:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC) "I don't understand why well-sourced content is being deleted. Is Wikipedia nuts or what?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Nalanda mahavihara."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

1. Issue relates to a poorly sourced section which doesn't even fall within the scope of the article. An IP has tried to remove it several times but the same(?) IP reverts relatively quickly.

• This IP-range is most likely a sock of User:RJShashwat. Have a look at these diffs [283] [284]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The section is well-sourced. Besides the historically acclaimed texts from 13th-20th century CE, articles from reports from the Archaeological Survey of India (the apex body of archaeology in India) as well as colonial-era research works by unbiased scholars has been cited. The existence of a Jain temple within the complex of the ruined Nalanda Mahavihara makes this section completely relevant to the subject. I don't understand the reason that content is being deleted. 2409:4080:E38:ECDD:88E8:4D0:728C:5D09 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

When you are reverted, you should seek WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD instead of edit warring. Also you are likely a sock of User:RJShashwat, hence WP:BANREVERT. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The users removing the well-sourced content have only given vague reasons to remove it. One of them was 'inaccessible sources', which is absolutely untrue. Nextly, they said it was 'unreliable sources'. I urge you to check for yourself if the sources are unreliable and then do as you wish. Thanks 2409:4080:E38:ECDD:88E8:4D0:728C:5D09 (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't you get it? You are edit warring and likely a sock-puppet of a blocked user User:RJShashwat. Even if your sources are fine, you'll be reverted for violating the aforementioned. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

User:IvanScrooge98 reported by User:Vampyricon (Result: Page protected)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Help:IPA/Japanese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IvanScrooge98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff (involving the removal of a prosodic break from the phonemes of Japanese)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (Edit war warning was not added by me.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (Reported user initiated dispute resolution attempt with no response by the other party.)

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

Comments:

The other party in the edit war started a section on this user's talk page regarding the edits: [285] Vampyricon (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

My bad for getting carried away. The other user has blatantly ignored WP:BRD as I have tried multiple times to tell them to open a discussion on the article talk instead of my own, a discussion which I now have opened myself to solve the dispute. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Both parties have violated 3RR. I was looking at this earlier and thought both were equally at fault EvergreenFir (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw only one of the parties trying to discuss the issue. The other didn't seem interested in discussion. Vampyricon (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't interested in discussing it on my personal talk because I wanted editors more experienced on the topic to debate the specifics of the content. The original edit just added a lot of words and clutter to a help page that is supposed to make IPA simple for readers to understand and that must match the transcriptions pointing there. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

You have repeatedly demonstrated your bad faith: reverting edits without good justifications other than your personal opinions, refusing to give citations for your decisions, whether they be official wiki guidelines or academic literature, using your woeful understaning of IPA notations as a defense. Now you have shown what I always suspected of you: you were trying to impose what you think was right while intending to offload the responsibility of debating the merits on others with "I wasn't interested in discussing it on my personal talk because I wanted editors more experienced on the topic to debate the specifics of the content". It was obvious you didn't care about the merits given how you kept changing the criteria, from "overcomplicated", to "unnecessary", to "other wiki pages", to "other languages", to "too much stuff", without ever going into specifics as to what those even mean. You even had to walk back some of your edits after I provided my justifications. I once again ask you: what standards are you basing your assessements, about "clutter" or "simplicity"? Or do you intend to keep weaseling out of your responsibility? What style guide says that that page must be the way you think they should be? I've had enough all your BS without objective justifications. You may have quietly gotten away with your shenanigans for sometimes, but now I demand you to explain your positions. Mazamadao (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I explained them right here. Either read or stop expecting others to accept major additions to a help page without understanding how a help page is supposed to work: simple explanations, few examples, and matching the thousands of IPA transcriptions linking to it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

And don't give me that "I'm not interested" and "I wanted editors more experienced on the topic". You clearly thought you had enough experience with your nonsensical justifications about "spaces" and some unnamed "other languages". You started this fight, don't start to have others pick up the slack for you. Mazamadao (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

"Blatantly"? I asked for the hundred time on your talk page why you did the things you did and you never mentioned this WP:BRD thing. I've repeatedly said NO PERSONAL OPINIONS, and now you've finally found the correct citation. I've just now learnt about this from another user. Mazamadao (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:155.69.182.1 reported by User:HundenvonPenang (Result: )

Page: Tourism in Malaysia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 155.69.182.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [286]
2. [287]
3. [288]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [289]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tourism in Malaysia#Rearrangement of content

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [290]

Comments:
IP hopper has persistent uncooperative, disruptive behaviour, as seen in Talk:List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru#"nation's second highest-ranked city"? and Talk:Rail transport in Malaysia#RTS Link as the First Ever LRV-based system up and running on Malaysian soil, outside KV. While I have requested WP:3O to mediate in this issue, IP has continued with their edit-warring conduct. hundenvonPG (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I sincerely request admins to see the history of the Tourism in Malaysia page. Clearly I was the one creating the talk page with HundevonPenang refusing to participating and kept reverting the edits. 155.69.182.1 (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Who started the reverts in the first place? Who was the one who requested WP:3O? Let the edit history speak for itself. hundenvonPG (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Who was the one who kept reverting the edits without replying to my discussion on the talk page? I have on your user talk page to urge you to come and discuss, but you deleted my comments (admin can go and see his user talk page history) and refused to discuss on the proper talk page. 155.69.182.1 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, you have just violated WP:3RR. What is there to discuss when you simply persist with edit-warring here? Again, let the edit history speak for itself. hundenvonPG (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

You were the one who edited the content by reversing the sequence W/O any citations to support, doesn't that already violate WP rules for not giving citations? 155.69.182.1 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

HundenvonPenang, you have been edit warring.

155.69.182.1, you have been edit warring.

Did you come here to get this information? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear admin, I was really frustrated by such behaviour albeit I have sincerely invited him to the talk page to discuss which I created. But he just deleted my invitation without any reasons. 155.69.182.1 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The frustration is likely mutual; I mostly wonder what you expect me to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

We now need to have 3O to resolve that, I guess. Though it was a really unneccasary and trivial rearrangement by this user. I have no idea what benefits it would bring given there is no citation given by this user. In contrast, I gave citations for my edits and reasons. 155.69.182.1 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The edit warring noticeboard doesn't provide third opinions though. But you don't need to justify the report, you didn't make it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for your advice. I will strive to make WP a more reliable place for readers by providing proper citations and supported methodologies. 155.69.182.1 (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Please read the article talk page again. Accusing me of not providing citations, when there already was. hundenvonPG (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Which one, Google Hits? Is Google Hits considered citations and supported by the general concensus in WP? Anyway, let's get back to talk page for proper discussion. I hope you would cooperate. 155.69.182.1 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Look at the previous 2 cases. Who was the one not cooperating, both times.

Meaning to say, airport statistics are not citations? According to who? You? hundenvonPG (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

ToBeFree, IP hopper has already demonstrated verbose, uncooperative conduct in Talk:List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru#"nation's second highest-ranked city"? and Talk:Rail transport in Malaysia#RTS Link as the First Ever LRV-based system up and running on Malaysian soil, outside KV.

This episode is no coincidence. Same editor, with the same edit-warring behaviour. They have already violated 3RR this time round. hundenvonPG (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

HundevonPenang, why not showing another edit warring which you had involved and ultimately get blocked by an admin last year? Plus, you do not have any proofs to say we are the same person as this is an IP address, it keeps changing. 155.69.182.1 (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Please read Talk:List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru#Third opinion. Denial does not absolve you of your conduct.

penultimate supper has already put it succinctly. hundenvonPG (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

HundenvonPenang, unless the user is evading a block, I don't yet see a reason for edit warring to remove their edits. Noone is hurt by the article staying as it is at the moment during the discussion. WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN exist, but sometimes they don't provide an easy solution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Issue was, IP was continuously reverting, even after I submitted a 3O request. hundenvonPG (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Please, you did not participate in the talk page initially. And why you deleted my requests in the first place? 155.69.182.1 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Did not participate? You did not even bother to read the talk page? Laughable! hundenvonPG (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you? Removing original versions while no resolution yet? 155.69.182.1 (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

HundenvonPenang, I can partially block both from editing the article for 2 weeks or take no action. I'll genuinely let you choose. This is not ironic or sarcastic or meant to be a threat, it's really just a question of "do you think it's needed". I won't perform a one-sided block in this matter. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Both of these editors are edit warring, but neither have violated WP:3RR. HundenvonPenang has made 2 reverts, and IP has made 3, but neither have made 4. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Mazamadao reported by User:Vampyricon (Result: Page protected)

Page: Help:IPA/Japanese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mazamadao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff (involving the addition of a prosodic break to the phonemes of Japanese with a large number of examples)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff (Not a reversion, but an attempt to add the same information nonetheless.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (Diff spans 2 versions. Warning template changed after noticing their edit war warning on the other involved user's talk page.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (Dispute resolution attempt is not mine. I am not involved in the recent changes to the page.)

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

Comments:

I understand that they have not made any edits since my addition of the edit war warning to their user talk page. However, they are clearly aware of the 3RR policy as they have posted the warning to the other party's user talk page, and yet continued to violate it. Vampyricon (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected per the below report. Aoidh (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)