Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Remsense reported by User:2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (Result: No violation)

    [edit]
    Enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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: Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Remsense (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: Guilty as charged. None of my justifications matter, since 3RR doesn't care that IPs can just slip into the night instead of actually engaging in discussion on talk, leaving a highly visible article in a broken state for hours because my hands are tied to fix it. Can't ask anyone else to fix it because that's canvassing. I've been given a lot of wiggle room here over the past couple months, so if this earns me a week then so be it. It's extremely frustrating trying to protect the most important articles on the site, so maybe after this I should just give up. Remsense ‥ 论 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Remsense: Your accusation that I left a highly visible article in a broken state for hours is a completely baseless attack and should lengthen your block. Any administrator can read the article's diffs and confirm that at no point did I do such a thing. You're the one who deleted well-referenced material. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a related side note, it does not seem that the IP editor really cares to follow WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY in this instance. - Amigao (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Add to the above the following personal attack by Remsense on the article's talk page: [9]. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, when I notified Remsense with the appropriate user warning for this personal attack, they replied with get the hell off my page. This is a clear violation of WP:CIVILITY. Add it to the list. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to back up the complaint against Remsense here, as he also recently failed to assume good faith in edits I posted and attacked me personally as an editor. He then followed me and deleted another edit I had posted on an unrelated page afterward after I questioned his conduct on his talk page (which he then deleted.) I question whether his temperament is suitable to be a moderator on Wikipedia.
    MrJ567 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such thing as a moderator on Wikipedia, Remsense is a Normal Editor like you and not an Admin Either. Untamed1910 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I stand by my comments on his temperament and conduct regardless.
    MrJ567 (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not reasonable to take someone's actions in good faith when they lie, both straightforwardly and by omission, in their representation of said actions to others. Remsense ‥ 论 04:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one lied, I made what I felt was a minor edit. You then jumped to incorrect conclusions, insulted me after I criticized your uncivil and unprofessional conduct and then stocked my editing history to an unrelated article. Your conduct in my view continues to be as I described, and I continue to hold your temperament to be ill-suited for editing here. I ask that you show humility and engage in much needed introspection and improve yourself if you intend to continue posting here. MrJ567 (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not a "minor clean up", and you know it. I don't have to pretend I don't also know it, so don't bother. FWIW I have Indiana on my watchlist, but you're not entitled to your contribution history being immune from scrutiny when one instance belies the clear possibility of more. That's why it's there. Remsense ‥ 论 04:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, humility and introspection would serve you well, but I see no benefit in further interaction with you. Take care. MrJ567 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another way of stating this would be to say that you didn't follow the date format rules (why doesn't really matter), used misleading/uninformative edit summaries experienced editors have seen countless times before with BCE->BC and CE->AD transforms like 'Minor clean up' and 'Minor grammar cleanup', and Remsense left you an informative message to help you avoid repeating these kinds of errors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation Remsense smartly reverted his last revert, so 3RR has not been violated. However, this has not been Wikipedians at their best. The IP's observation that the cited source does not mention this has not been addressed; instead this edit war broke out over something entirely procedural which is not even policy. Further discussion should, I think, focus on the issue around the sourcing of "equitable" and whether that word should be cited in the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case: A violation did occur. That self-revert happened long after the violation was reported here at WP:AN3. You cannot exempt a user from punishment just because they self-reverted long after being reported to try to avoid said punishment. Furthermore, Remsense has committed the same violation before. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are not a punishment, but a way to end and prevent disruption. By self-reverting, they recognized they erred, meaning the risk of further disruption is low. If you wish to pursue a grievance against another user's alleged broad pattern of behavior, that's not done here, but at WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: @Daniel Case: That's what punishment does: Deterrence. By letting Remsense get away with this violation, you're breaking your own rules and encouraging similar behavior in the future.
    Do you have any personal connection with Remsense? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny this happened on Justice, given how frivolous and easily superseded this line of argumentation is. In cases as transparently explicable as this, unmediated claims of conspiracy truly are the last refuge of the scoundrel. Bless. Remsense ‥ 论 21:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Remsense: Calling a user a "scoundrel" after you've already made several personal attacks? Not wise. There's already a case building up against you. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a set phrase. I've indulged your repeated baiting of me more than enough at this point, so from now on please refrain from speaking to me unless you have something about site content you need to discuss. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Remsense: Calling a user a "scoundrel" is a personal attack. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: @Daniel Case: To clarify, are you saying that if someone self-reverts long after being reported for a violation, they are exempt from any kind of consequence? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given you have safely proven yourself a scholar of counting to 4, I recommend the remainder of Wikipedia:Edit warring to expand your horizons even further. Remsense ‥ 论 22:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This wasn't really helpful. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: Remsense has already made 3 personal attacks on this matter. Will you hold them accountable for that? Or will you let them get away with it, again? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you move on from this matter. WP:DROPTHESTICK. I've already told you how you can pursue a grievance if that's something you really want to do. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DROPTHESTICK Ah, the classic last retort of someone who has no rebuttal and knows they're in the wrong. By the way, "DROPTHESTICK" isn't policy. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't claim that it is. It's advice. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing to say beyond what I already said. If you have evidence that they have truly not recognized their errors, or have a long pattern of behavior that requires evaluation and action by the community, AN is the proper forum. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And no, I have no connection with this user. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have evidence that they have truly not recognized their errors Remsense has already been blocked twice before for edit warring: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Remsense. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they're exempt from 3RR as 3RRNO clearly exempts reverts of your own reverts for exactly the reason 331dot mentioned. If there are other policies they have violated that might lead to a block, no, they're not off that hook. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case: Which point of 3RRNO do you claim absolves Remsense of this violation? Be specific. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Daniel very clearly answered this already. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: No, he didn't. Point 1 of WP:3RRNO means reverting yourself doesn't add to the 3RR count, not that it subtracts from it. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the most common method of remedying a 3RR or 1RR violation, and is very common practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: So you admit a violation did occur. And "remedying" ≠ exempting. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WIKILAWYER. You really need to move on, this is becoming disruptive. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you want me to "move on" from pursuing fair enforcement of Wikipedia's policies? As an administrator, you should be careful with your words. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait until they find out that there is no policy definition of "revert". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: What's the point of your comment? Instead of being cryptic, why don't you state it outright? 19:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy pages are descriptive not proscriptive, and a lot of things are outright missing, e.g. the definition of what is forbidden by 3RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: Policy pages are... not proscriptive False. Read WP:3RR:
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.
    a lot of things are outright missing, e.g. the definition of what is forbidden by 3RR False. It's very clearly stated at WP:3RR. How is someone like you an administrator if you don't know this? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the policy definition of a revert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: WP:REV. Do I really need to take you on a tour of Wikipedia's policies and basic vocabulary? Aren't you an administrator? You should've already known this. 2605:8D80:5400:3F29:A8DC:F22C:78C3:6011 (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you said above, that's not a policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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:MapReader reported by User:Notwally (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

    [edit]

    Page: 1917 (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265942060 by Notwally (talk) It's a long-standing descriptor that has been in the article since early 2020, not that long after the film was released, that has been discussed extensively at least twice. You challenge it by going to the talk page."
    2. 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265836072 by Notwally (talk) The page carries the full discussion from 2020 and 2023, which includes reference to the relevant guidelines and the necessary citations. You don’t just wade in a year later and change the article without resuming the talk."
    3. 21:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265821239 by Notwally (talk) There was no consensus for your removal, which referred to talk page discussions that didn’t exist, or at least weren’t contemporary"
    4. 14:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC) "Per RS, restoring the consensus position prior to the autumn edit"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 1917 (2019 film)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC) on Talk:1917 (2019 film) "/* Country? */ r"

    Comments:

    There is no consensus for this inclusion that this editor has restored 4 times in the past day, despite multiple prior talk page discussions. – notwally (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor has repeteadly endeavoured to force a change in an article that has twice been subject to lengthy prior discussion, ignoring all my requests for him to raise this on the talk page in the normal way. The diff he or she provides as an "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is four and a half years old, and not from the same account name, and doesn't represent any attempt to resolve the issue since it was a contribution to a discussion that both left the article unchanged and has been superseded by a longer more recent one, in 2023, that established consensus. Pitching up four years later and trying to force a change after a discussion in which you took part - under a different account name - simply because you disagree with the outcome and without resuming the conversation or taking any account of a lengthy further discussion in which this editor apparently did not take part, is disruptive editing.
    MapReader (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of one week from the article. This was a tough one to call. I thought seriously about declining it as all the discussion has been civil and it seems everyone is not only acting in good faith but reciprocally assuming it of the other parties (well, there is as of now only one on one side). Had I decided to decline, I would have done so on the basis of the edit being reverted to being rather old ... we have no policy guidance on how old that edit has to be; sometimes people here have cited year-old edits as the basis of their complaint. But at the same time I would commend MapReader's attention to WP:WEAKSILENCE: "... a lack of response to an edit does not necessarily imply community consent", contrary to what you suggest here.

    The underlying problem is, as IN notes here, is that this dispute falls neatly into a gap that FILMCOUNTRY fails to address, an issue as noted best resolved at the policy level. In the meantime, though, policy shortcomings cannot be allowed to justify edit wars, and in the meantime I read LOCALCONSENSUS as, by implication, deferring to the decision made here on the talk page.

    MapReader is acting in good faith when they point out the lack of clear guidance. All the same ... while they are correct again to note the deficiency of citing the 2020 discussion as a basis for consensus when the 2023 discussion exists, I read that 2023 discussion as, in the noted absence of clarity at the policy level, establishing a consensus for following FILMCOUNTRY and leaving the countries of production out of the lede entirely while noting them in the infobox. MapReader's good-faith skepticism about Lumiere's methodology notwithstanding, it does not give them the right to revert the current lede.

    Since, as it turned out, I have previously partially blocked MapReader before for similar conduct, and there has been an intervening sitewide block, I am doing it again, this time for longer. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the explanation. Just to be clear, the lead was stable between 2020 and late summer this year, 2024, on the basis of the 2020 and 2023 discussions. It was the other editor - who appears to have contributed briefly to the 2020 discussion but under a different username - who intervened to make a change late this summer, without revisiting the talk page at all, and after I restored the status quo, has attempted to force this through today without discussion. While I realise I made one revert too many, his/her gaming 3RR to force through an edit that runs contrary to previous discussion, and citing a four year old comment as evidence of being willing to talk about it, was having a laugh, IMHO. MapReader (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, this is best addressed at the policy level. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thesanas reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: Page full-protected for three days)

    [edit]

    Page: Pooja Hegde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Restoring the last version by User:Charliehdb"
    2. 07:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265915480 by CNMall41 (talk): WP:ONUS applies to those who adds contents. I only replaced with reliable sources. Please stop WP:EDITWAR here"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 06:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pooja Hegde."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "/* GA article */"

    Comments:

    Additional warring is here and here. User erased previous warning from their talk page here and was warned numerous times about getting consensus on the talk page. Has been reverted by three different editors at this point but user still does not seem to get it. CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I restored user:Charliehdb last edit [10]. What is the mistake in restoring other users edits? I am here to expand and make this article with reliable sources. Why are you removing my edits with reliable sources and making this article with unreliable sources? Thesanas (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure Charliehdb is a WP:MEAT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't surprise me but I am not sure I would get much reception at SPI at this point with as many filings I have done recently on Indian film related UPE, SOCKS, and MEAT.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They obviously do not care about WP:ONUS and likely UPE based on the continued edit war. I will let them continue to bludgeon and just roll back once they are blocked. Not worth the stress of trying to clean up the page when they don't seem to want to work within a collaborative community. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected in full for three days, since while the submitted diffs do not constitute a violation as there aren't enough, we clearly can't let this go on. With the allegations of socking and meating, this really should go to AN/I ... or SPI, CNMall's reservations notwithstanding. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stevencocoboy reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Declined)

    [edit]

    Page: United States men's national junior ice hockey team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* IIHF World Junior Championship */ Hide it first because WP:HOCKEY"
    2. 05:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Please stop the edit war, I want to edit and update result only"
    3. 05:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Why? we can update the result which the events are finish"
    4. 05:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* IIHF World Junior Championship */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 05:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Stevencocoboy "/* Respecting consensus of your fellow editors */ new section"

    Comments:

    Look at his person's talk page. They have been warned over and over and over. Just at US Figure Skating Template they must be 10x reverts. I didn't report that because he promised me on my talk page he would be better, but it hasn't stopped him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry it's because I don't know a consensus in WP:HOCKEY. I'm not American and my english is poor. I don't know we can't update a result and we need until the event was completed. Also I need using some times to translate what is talking about. After I translate it, I'm stopped edit in the page. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the thing... you have been warned of this many times on multiple subjects, and you've been editing here for 10 years now. I count that you have been warned 11x since September 2024... most of which you didn't answer on your talk page. In October you were told by an editor "Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges." On December 24 I told you to "Self-revert or I WILL report you, and you will get blocked" for 8 reverts of Template:U.S. Figure Skating Championships. The same day I told you "You are also dangerously close to being blocked for your edits at "U.S. Figure Skating Championships." Yesterday a third editor told you to stop vandalizing "United States men's national ice hockey team". You were told about edit warring and to read up on consensus by editors at WP:Hockey. And then again a warning for "United States men's national junior ice hockey team".
    This has gone on long enough. For your own good you need to be blocked a couple days to think about things and you really should be doing one edit and then move on to another topic. As soon as another editor reverts your new edit that should be a huge red ringing warning not to edit that page again until given the go-ahead by other editors on the talk page. This has to stop NOW before your privilege of editing here gets revoked. I was stern with you on your talk page about your 8 reverts, but you stopped and we came to a compromise, and I did not report you. Since then your talk page has been filled by five more minor and major warnings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can promise stop editing about ice hockey pages in recent days and calm down more because I've make a controversial. I'm sorry again. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined with leave to re-report if reported user breaks his promise above. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's good enough for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. Stevencocoboy (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Atsee reported by User:Dora the Axe-plorer (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266205860 by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) don't revert for no reason. If you disagree with my reasons for making an edit, you need to explain why."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 15:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC) to 15:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      1. 15:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266201041 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) first one doesn't need to be a footnote; second is not necessary; third is not relevant; fourth doesn't even make sense."
      2. 15:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266205410 by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) there is no citation where the fact tag has been placed. place the relevant citation there. that is all that needs doing."
    3. Consecutive edits made from 13:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC) to 13:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      1. 13:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "removed a lot of footnotes which are redundant. there is no need for a definition of a term when the term is linked."
      2. 13:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "doesn't need a dictionary link"
      3. 13:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Caldera collapse */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Your edits on Huaynaputina */ new section"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 15:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Footnotes */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Discussion at Talk:Huaynaputina#Footnotes, user repeatedly deleting footnotes without a valid reason on a Featured Article Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This user clearly wanted an edit war. Witness their utterly unhelpful edit summaries in their three reverts:
    There was no need to file this report. There is discussion on the talk page. The user evidently wanted an edit war, and evidently wanted to make a fuss about it. Atsee (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It took you multiple reverts before you actually even replied to the talk discussion, even after explaining in the FA and your talk pages, you continued to insinuate you are in the right. While the discussion was active, after Mike Christie's reply, you continued your reverts. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed the first revert didn't trigger the undo tag but the edit summary suggest a revert and subsequent changes before publishing. It would count to three reverts. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:36.228.143.128 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Declined)

    [edit]

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

    User being reported: 36.228.143.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 10:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 22:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 22:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 13:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Matriarchy."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    IP has persistently inserted extraordinary claims and violated the three-revert rule. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined as user has not edited since the last warning they got ten hours ago (of course, if they resume ...). I will leave a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dustinscottc reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Both users and an IP blocked from page for a week)

    [edit]

    Page: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dustinscottc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [11]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [12]
    2. [13]
    3. [14]
    4. [15]
    5. [16]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit warring is a WP:1AM situation at an article Talk page, but I tried to explain the issue to the editor at my own Talk, here.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]

    Comments:
    This editor has reverted 5 times already and shows no sign of stopping; the account is an WP:SPA and the editor is warring to obscure this on the article talk page that they are preoccupied with.

    They seem really determined to claim that they aren't an SPA, using the WP:SPATG "Editing timeline" section to claim the label doesn't count. But I see no other description for an account that hasn't edited since 2013 and, since reactivating recently, has only edited this one talk page outside of 3 edits earlier this year. SilverserenC 00:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “Users with a diversified edit history that indicates that the user became inactive for an extended period and then later re-established themselves with single-subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person may have been referred to Wikipedia by an outside source (see WP:MEATPUPPET), but this is not evidence that the account is an SPA.”
    I don’t see how my situation doesn’t fall squarely into this definition of what is not SPA.
    It seems pretty clear that the SPA label was applied (by an anonymous user) to try to discredit me during an ongoing discussion on a talk page. What is the proper recourse to resolve that? What is the protocol to prevent other editors from inappropriately applying tags to my own comments? Dustinscottc (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic of this filing is your edit-warring on that talk page. The question whether a handful of edits you made in 2009 and 2010 mean that you are not an WP:SPA in 2024-25 is, at best, to be discussed in another venue, as are the questions you are now asking about "recourse" for being "discredited". None of that would be a justification for making multiple reverts. Newimpartial (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You’ve made your point—now I’m asking a question. You reverted my changes without justification. I’m now asking how to address unjustified edits to my own comments in the future.
    For what it’s worth, if whether or not I am in fact SPA is irrelevant, why did you bring it up in your report?
    Please do not respond unless you have an answer to that question Dustinscottc (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question, I mentioned your SPA editing because it is relevant to whether you are here to build an encyclopaedia or not, which may affect how the community responds to your edit-warring behaviour.
    Also, templates following your comments are not considered edits to your own comments, and you should not seek to address them. Newimpartial (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is repeatedly reverting the deletion of an editor’s SPA tag and then reporting that editor for edit warring helpful to building an encyclopedia? Or would it have been a better use of everyone’s time to simply say to yourself, “Maybe whether this user is SPA isn’t so clear, so I’ll just drop it”? Dustinscottc (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As the person who tagged you as a SPA, in the last DECADE you have made (1) edit not about this topic. You should self revert and retag yourself. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve already cited the relevant guidance regarding returns from an extended absence. And for what it’s worth, I have made multiple other small fixes to articles without signing into my account. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oof, read WP:LOUTSOCK. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read it? WP:LOUTSOCK is only a problem when intended to deceive. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name another area where you are engaged? 107.115.5.100 (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the past few days? None. I’ve spent all of my limited Wikipedia time trying to resolve one sentence. Assuming that resolves, I will likely continue to make minor edits to topics related to law, the Latter-day Saint movement, and Arizona.
    SPA isn’t a designation for accounts that are presently focused on one thing—it’s for accounts that appear to exist for one purpose. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've spent a DECADE focused on one talk page, you are a single purpose account. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve spent a decade focused on a subject that didn’t exist four years ago? Dustinscottc (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you were not actually editing? 107.115.5.100 (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Asked and answered. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I can’t seem to find a way to reply directly to the report, I will have to place this comment here.
    Looking through other actions, declining any action appears to be the most consistent approach. I have not reverted anything since the warning. I had not realized that 3RR applied to talk pages. The reversions were in response to apparently concerted efforts (given the timing of each reversion by different users) to prevent me from removing the (I believe, inappropriately) imposed SPA tags.
    I would appreciate some guidance on how to object to the SBA tags in situations like this. Dustinscottc (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted. Thank you. Dustinscottc (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors blocked – for a period of a week from the page along with 107.115.5.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). My block of Dustin is with some regret; it is only because their reverts are not specifically allowed by WP:3RRNO and I do not feel comfortable invoking WP:IAR in this situation. I commend him for remaining civil and I understand why he did it. He is in my opinion entirely correct in pointing out that the language of WP:SPATG excludes his account from such tagging since their editing timeline shows edits to other articles in different areas, regardless of how long ago they were made (And to suggest that Dustin has edited nothing else "for the past decade" is meaningless and irrelevant, as COVID has only been around for a little over four years, so he couldn't possibly have edited anything COVID-related prior to that period).

    After the first such revert, the point (if we can say there was any) had been made and the tags should not have been restored. To continue to do so, especially recently as Dustin had not edited the talk page in any capacity, is schoolyard-level textbook harassment. To suggest that Dustin is a sock or meatpuppet purely on the basis of the long lacuna in their account history shows severe inability to assume good faith. To do this on the talk page of an article near the heart of a contentious topic area cannot go unsanctioned. If, indeed, there are any genuine concerns here, they should be taken to AN/I or SPI.

    And Silverseren you are better than that. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bishonen: I had no idea you were declining since I was writing the long explanation for my partial blocks below. If you would like to unblock go ahead. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will leave it to you, Daniel, as I'm actually asleep, and just going back to bed - I don't want to make any delicate decisions at this point. But did you notice Dustin hadn't reverted since being warned? That was the reason I declined. You have blocked them specifically for "Violation of the three-revert rule" per the block log. You may want to change the block reason (or else unblock, I dunno). Bishonen | tålk 05:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    As I wrote below, there had been four reverts, and while perhaps 3RRNO should allow an exception in this situation it presently does not. I don't feel that I'm in the best position at the moment to just declare a new exception. Daniel Case (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did I get a pblock? 107.115.5.100 (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In particular, the reason you blocked me was that I made a personal attack. I'm cautious not to attack people, could you provide a diff of the personal attack I used that caused you to block me? If not, would you unblock me yourself? 107.115.5.100 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the drop-down menu on the blocking page gives "personal attacks or harassment". I concede that you didn't engage in personal attacks, so I will put in a new entry that just says "harassmnent" Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Harassment? Would you provide diffs? I didn't harass anyone, even though I admit, I am an IP and that often means catching random blocks. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You restored the tags on Dustin's edits six hours after he had last reverted them, tags that as I have said elsewhere (and as he noted more than once) were added to every iteration of his signature on the page in direct contradiction of guidance that says his account should not be considered an SPA. You had also done this earlier. Both of these times you did not indicate in your edit summary that you were doing this, much less why. It really seems hard to conclude anything but that you and Newimpartial were trying to run Dustin off the talk page.

    And by the way, your edits from this IP only go back a couple of days, yet you talk as if you have considerable experience that goes back some time. Daniel Case (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No I didn't, another user readded them. I added them once was reverted and done. Please provide a diff of me readding them, or again, revert your block. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, my IP changes randomly. You can pay my internet service provider for a static IP if you want to. I will gladly take it. Please provide the diff of me readding those tags like you said happened though, because I'm pretty certain this is a hasty bad block, where you have confused my edit history with those involved in this report. I'm not mad, it's a confusing log and mistakes happen. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide the diff of me readding those tags like you said happened. Right here. Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    especially recently as Dustin had not edited the talk page in any capacity This is utter nonsense. They have made 60 edits to said talk page in the past 3 days. Prior to that, they had 5 edits earlier this year (2 of which were to this same talk page) and then no edits since 2013. Returning after a long break to only edit a single talk page is absolutely SPA behavior. It is not an accusation of sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, but a statement that the person on the account is now using it solely to push a single topic. In this case, a contentious political and scientific topic. Which is even more of a common SPA activity.
    Furthermore, your activation of ECP on the talk page fixes the problem anyways, so the Pblocks were unnecessary. ECP ensures that none of the new accounts (and some of the old ones with SPA activities like Dustin here) will be able to edit the page for the foreseeable future. Which is fine by me and sorely needed for that article. But it's funny, because it means the Pblock is pointless now. Until Dustin gets 400 more edits, at least.
    But, seriously, why are you using sockpuppetry as an argument whatsoever? No one here even made that claim or accusation in the first place. SilverserenC 05:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I was referring to ws what you may have been unaware of ... in fact, reading over your response, it's a certainty that you were. Dustin's last edit on the talk page was to revert the tagging. It remained unreverted by anyone involved here for six hours ... until 107.115 came in and did it, apparently taking advantage of Dustin's decision to back off on any further edits to essentially kick him when down. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not put the talk page under ECP ... we very rarely do that, even in PIA articles. A review of the protection logs will easily confirm this if you don't believe me. The language of the CTOPS notice on the talk page, like all such notices, specifically and explicitly refers to the restrictions that apply to the associated article "The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article ...." Perhaps we should find a way for the template to mention any restrictions that apply to the talk page. But that's not the issue here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A 5RR revert to the version you wanted is not "backing off", it is achieving the version you wanted without needing to make any further changes. You seem to be attributing certain beliefs on the part of 107.115's revert that isn't founded in actual evidence.
    I don't see how pointing out after Dustin admitted to editing while logged out that doing so on any related articles would be a violation of WP:LOUTSOCK. That is not accusing this current account of being a sockpuppet. Those are two different things. That was just a reminder to them that logged out editing when one does has an account should be avoided, for multiple reasons. Dustin prompted that mention because of the admission they made here on having such editing activity in between logged in times.
    Again, this seems to be you making massive assumptions that aren't represented by anyone's editing, not to mention openly ignoring very blatant SPA activities. SilverserenC 05:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The version you wanted"? Hello ... Earth to McFly ... Hello? We are, firstly, not talking about editorial content in an article. We are talking about an edit on a talk page. Specifically, we are talking about a pejorative tag repeatedly applied to an editor's edits. On the talk page for an article in a contentious topic area, where the banner at the top of the page reminds editors to be on their best behavior. This was not something readers were going to go to to look for information on the topic. And especially since I consider the constant restoration of the tags to have been harassment that was not legitimate editorial activity, I see this as the sort of thing that should not have been the subject of an edit war. If ever there was a stick that should have been dropped, it was this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was just a reminder to them that logged out editing when one does has an account should be avoided, for multiple reasons. I would believe that but for the context. Not all editing done while logged out necessarily falls under LOUTSOCK, even that done while knowingly logged out. LOUTSOCK is specific to " Editing under multiple IP addresses, or editing under both a named account and as an IP, when done deceptively or otherwise violating the principles of this policy" To be fair, I would not have made that admission if I were Dustin as there was no reason for him to unless he was trying to be scrupulously honest, and I wish for the sake of this discussion that he had not, but ... if he is not anonymously editing any of the articles he edits with his account, or any related to them, he is not technically violating policy. For 107.115 to have made the leap from that admission to an accusation that implies deceptive misuse is, well, a leap of failure to assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this seems to be you making massive assumptions that aren't represented by anyone's editing I disagree, to put it mildly, especially when that accusation is far truer of two of the blocked editors. As for the "SPA activities", neither you nor they ever explained why you do not think that Dustin's invocation of the language in WP:SPATG that directly addresses his situation ("Examples of users whose edits should not be labeled as being those of an SPA include the following: Users with a diversified edit history that indicates that the user became inactive for an extended period and then later re-established themselves with single-subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person may have been referred to Wikipedia by an outside source (see WP:MEATPUPPET), but this is not evidence that the account is an SPA.") is apposite. In fact, every time he brought that up you and/or the other two acted like it had gone completely over your heads. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop splitting up my singular comment with multiple comments of yours. I have compiled them again, in order.
    Are you seriously claiming the use of the SPA tag is itself pejorative? It is a commonly used tag in AfDs and RfCs in general, all across Wikipedia. It is routinely used to tag accounts that solely edit the article or discussion in question and in particular if they have been making excessive comments in that discussion (ie 50 comments in 3 days).
    Not all editing while logged out would violate LOUTSOCK, but do you really think an account that only edits a single talk page after returning would have edits entirely outside of that area when logged out? It's precisely an area of concern to have after such an admission of editing practices. There have been multiple IP address responders showing up on that talk page over the past two months, so it seems both relevant and prudent after such an admission to warn about such possible activity when logged in and out.
    Please, Daniel, explain how 10 edits from 2009-2013 counts as a "diversified edit history". Practically any long-term editor familiar with SPAs on Wikipedia would call that duck a duck and multiple people directly have above in this very section and elsewhere. SilverserenC 06:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop splitting up my singular comment with multiple comments of yours. I have compiled them again, in order. Are you seriously claiming the use of the SPA tag is itself pejorative? The real question is why you would even think that. Are you honestly asking us to suppose that WP:SPATG was written just as some meaningless exercise? Why would we write guidelines about when not to use it if we didn't want it to be an accusation cast around lightly? Yes, sometimes it's true ... I have blocked quite a few accounts as SPAs (but more on that later) But, to turn around a Latin phrase I commonly use, a widespread legitimate use in no way makes it impossible to use something abusively. I should have thought that it was easy to understand that by "pejorative", I meant in this context.

    Consider also that the {{alert/first}} template has the legitimate use of letting newer users, both IPs and registered accounts, know that their editing in contentious topic areas has drawn some attention, and that they should check themselves before they wreck themselves. It is broadly useful. But at the same time we warn editors against alerting someone about a contentious topic who has already been so advised, and doing that enough can be considered a blockable offense. We also have, of course, the "don't template the regulars" page.

    It is a commonly used tag in AfDs and RfCs in general, all across Wikipedia. As are the ones I've already mentioned. That widespread use does not mean they can't be misused or abused, as they were in this situation. It is routinely used to tag accounts that solely edit the article or discussion in question and in particular if they have been making excessive comments in that discussion (ie 50 comments in 3 days). In my experience, slightly longer than yours here I think, that is not so routine. Really, before the present episode, I hadn't seen it used on talk pages much. I actually saw it used much more often in the old days, most frequently in AfDs, often where it was likely (or known) that people had been solicited on other websites to go vote in the AfD.

    And think about just what level of use you're implying and what effect that would have on users. Don't many new editors come in and edit just one article getting their feet wet? Do we usually not just indulge them in this process? Would it not be sort of BITE-y if we "routinely" tagged them as SPAs?

    Also from my lengthy experience, the SPA tag has largely been used not just when an editor has been editing only one article or a small set of closely related ones, but when they seem to be doing so in the service of some agenda. As SPA notes, "many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest". Maybe that's what Dustin is? Other than his minority viewpoint in the talk discussions, are you prepared to identify some agenda or interest with an ulterior motive you believe Dustin to be acting on behalf of?

    And, really, we often used it when an editor was also being disruptive. In this case, could you identify some other way in which Dustin was being disruptive? (I know, he has been warned about bludgeoning the debate, but not to the level that it appeared people were ready to ask for a block).

    Basically, what interest of Wikipedia was served by repeatedly tagging his account as an SPA in sigs? In talk page discussions? As Dustin noted, he has nowhere near the edit count necessary to edit that article, so there's no threat of disruption to it, at least not from him. And he was outnumbered in that discussion and not likely to carry that day anyway. Just what was so urgent that you had to make sure anyone reading the talk page knew he was believed to be an SPA?

    Not all editing while logged out would violate LOUTSOCK, but do you really think an account that only edits a single talk page after returning would have edits entirely outside of that area when logged out? If you have diffs that you suspect of having been Dustin as an IP editing in support of his position, then now's the time to share them. Otherwise, your argument sounds paranoid. There have been multiple IP address responders showing up on that talk page over the past two months. If they have been disruptive, I think a request for semi-protecting that page, given that it's already the talk page for an article that's under indefinite ECP due to CTOPS status, would be looked upon favorably at RFPP. Targeting a specific autoconfirmed user doesn't seem like the best way to address that problem, if it is a problem.

    Please, Daniel, explain how 10 edits from 2009-2013 counts as a "diversified edit history". Hmm ... in English usage "diversified" doesn't have as much to do with the absolute number of items described, so much as how different they are from each other. Granted, with a low number, it's a little hard to make that call. But here we have 14 edits during that time period, and they include some edits to political subjects, some religious ones, one TV show, a town and a school. Those edits seem diverse to me.

    I would also note that since I blocked him from the article talk page, Dustin has gone and made an edit to Talk:Mesa, Arizona ... hardly the choice one would expect of some single-purpose edit warrior focused on the COVID lab-leak theory. Daniel Case (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to add, as a bemused watcher of that page: the SPA tag was added first to their !vote in an RfC. You can make a case that this was legitimate, because the purpose of the tag is to indicate to a closer of the discussion that the !vote was cast by someone who has not edited widely elsewhere and may or may not be canvassed to the discussion. It is up to the closer to decide what to do with that information. But it is informational. Once. Dustin went on to write a lot, and yes, they did get carried away, and warnings about bludgeoning were rightly given. But we have just noted that they have limited experience on Wikipedia, so to tag every single one of their comments looks pretty WP:BITEy from where I am sitting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:49.36.235.180 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: List of nicknames of prime ministers of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 49.36.235.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Narendra Modi */Again not a nickname just a term used by opposition to demean not by everyone as a nickname."
    2. 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "What do you consider a correct source according to you?"
    3. 17:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Narendra Modi */Then how can this a source of nickname it's just a opinion of someone for gaining votes and demeaning opposition party."
    4. Consecutive edits made from 17:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 17:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Correct and same type source as you have recently republished"
      2. 17:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    5. 17:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    6. 17:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Narendra Modi */Not a nickname just a disrespectful term used by some dirty politics doings politicians bad mouthing publicly to gain attention over their pity self career ."
    7. 17:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Narendra Modi */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on List of nicknames of prime ministers of India."
    2. 17:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
    3. 17:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* List of nicknames of prime ministers of India */ new section"
    4. 18:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* List of nicknames of prime ministers of India */"
    5. 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* List of nicknames of prime ministers of India */ discuss please"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 18:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* "Maun Mohan" */ new section"
    2. 18:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* "Maun Mohan" */ coment"

    Comments:

    I've warned, engaged, started talk discussion, and I'm burnt out. Need someone else to look so I don't engage in 3RR myself. ZimZalaBim talk 04:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.196.104.11 reported by User:Wowzers122 (Result: /23 blocked from both articles for a week)

    [edit]

    Page: 2024 United States presidential election in Kentucky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Letcher County, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 174.196.104.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [19] [20]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [21] - Dec 31 "these are the correct results according to Dave Leips"
    2. [22] - Dec 31 "Per source of Dave Leips"
    3. [23] - Jan 1 "These are the correct results per Dave Leip’s. Don’t undo this edit again."
    4. [24] - Jan 1
    5. [25] - Jan 1 "these are the correct results per Dave Leip’s. Don’t undo this edit again."
    6. [26] - Jan 1 "per source of Dave Leip’s"
    7. [27] - Jan 1 "These are the correct results per source of Dave Leip’s"

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [29]

    Comments:
    All the differences on both pages concern whether to use the numbers from a website called Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (which cites the Kentucky State Board of Elections as its data source) or the Official 2024 General Election Results provided by the Kentucky State Board of Elections. The number for "other" votes on the page before the edit warring was 126 for Letcher County (per election board), which the IP insists on changing to 146 (per Dave Leip).

    I should also note that @Mad Mismagius: reverted all but one and the current IP edits on these pages without warning the user or attempting to engage in talk page discussion. I made one revert and left a warning on the user's talk page, who later reverted my revert.

    Also, there are two other IPs (now dormant) that made identical edits on these pages with similar edit summaries. One on Dec 27 "Correct Letcher County votes" and another on Dec 29 "these are the correct results according to Dave Leips". Wowzers122 (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of a week 174.196.104.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) from articles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2804:3D5C:B300:7B0:540A:406B:F7AF:C17D reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: Blocked one week)

    [edit]

    Page: List of Squid Game characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2804:3D5C:B300:7B0:540A:406B:F7AF:C17D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 12:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 12:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.6)"
    3. 12:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.6)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    False. You did vandalize the same text multiple times using as excuse lack of sources (not anyone's fault you tried to edit a page without watching the respective show and made a fan-canon where the show's actitons never happened) when there are 0 sources on the entirety of the discussed character as the information used is from visual/audio information from the 4th episode. I asked you to stop in my IP talk page, in your talk page, and on the page's talk page, and you refused, instead you vandalized over and over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:3D5C:B300:7B0:540A:406B:F7AF:C17D (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.93.89.27 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: 1 week partial block for both parties)

    [edit]

    Page: Salim Halali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 174.93.89.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Source is about Bone."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Well, if the dispute is about sources, this peer-reviewed academic source should settle the matter."
      2. 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 18:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266885362 by M.Bitton (talk) - No need for the talk page. Just click on the link for Bône in this article."
    4. 16:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266617369 by M.Bitton (talk) - Be that as it may, it is now known as Annaba."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Salim Halali."
    2. 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    This edit partially reverts the biography to a previous state. And anyway, I blocked you for edit warring, not 3RR. PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does revert it to the stable and well sourced version (the one that actually makes sense, given that Annaba has been known as such for centuries). For the rest, no comment. M.Bitton (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1266904920"