Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Edit warring)
Latest comment: 12 minutes ago by Jauerback in topic User:1DHNK1 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result:blocked one week)

    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:Michael F 1967 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No violation)

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments6 people in discussion

    Page: Obturating ring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Michael F 1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    An obscure (but significant) question of terminology in naval gunnery. Compounded by an existing WP article being pretty poor and, of course, WP not ever being WP:RS.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    The editor copyedits in a GF change, but introduces an error. Breech blocks slide into the breech of an artillery piece. Artillery pieces with a screw breech instead use a breech screw. This is typically a question of size: BL (breech loading) artillery uses a screw breech with a shell and separate bagged charges of propellant, QF (Quick Firing) uses a one piece brass-cased cartridge. The Welin screw breech is named similarly.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Michael_F_1967#August_2025

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Obturating_ring#Welin_breech_block_terminology

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [5]

    Comments:


    I've encountered this editor before on a number of equally technical articles The Iron Bridge being the most memorable (see the Talk:). Each time they've come to an article with no real knowledge of the subject, but been adamant that their version is correct. No amount of sourcing will convince them otherwise. If an editor brings sourcing, it's dismissed as "just your personal opinion"[6][7] Nor have they improved over the years.

    In this case they've been given a book source (probably the best widely available book on the subject), a Commons diagram of a contemporary artillery diagram, with names, and a link to another article where BL 12 inch Mk IX#Bibliography is pretty much a standard reading list on the subject. They're not interested. They Know Best.

    The underlying problem is that Welin breech block is a poor and misleading article. Although it does long have at least one other source [8] with the correct naming. It would be nice if someone might have the time to rewrite this altogether (it should move to screw breech, as there are more than the Welin pattern). But instead we just get our time wasted responding to groundless edit-warring like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I strongly object to Andy Dingley's false characterisation of my behaviour - while admitting that I remain imperfect. In this case, my initial edit was to make the terminology in this particular article consistent with the Wikipedia page to which it referred. It's got nothing to do with my personal views at all - as Andy Dingley knows perfectly well. Andy Dingley changed the article - twice! - without providing a source to justify the edit. It was just on their say-so.
    I've found an apparently reliable source to justify the terminology in question. "Screw breech block" seems to be correct terminology based on the sources I've found (I can cite more, if need be), regardless of Andy Dingley's personal views. I'd appreciate a bit less in the way of personal remarks and a bit more in the way of "assume good faith".
    One clear source I found is:
    {{cite web
    |title=12 inch Mk X Gun Breech Mechanism : HMAS Australia (I)
    |url= https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C240739
    |website= Australian War Memorial
    |url-status= live
    |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20250826235636/https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C240739
    |archive-date=2025-08-26
    |access-date=2025-08-26
    |quote=The mechanism consists of the breech, and an interrupted screw breech block on a hinged mounting. [...] The Welin breech block was invented by Axel Welin in 1889 or 1890.}} Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Per my comment here, Andy’s idiosyncratic definition is simply wrong. And I see no reason to block anyone over four reverts in 3+ days. Parsecboy (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Every time I've encountered you, you have edited in exactly the same way. You force some clueless opinion into an article, and are then utterly impervious to all sources presented to the contrary. Hodges isn't the only book I have on the subject, but as the generally agreed canon text on naval heavy artillery of this era, it's the only one I'm going to bother opening and giving you a literal page number for.[9] at Talk:Obturating_ring#Welin_breech_block_terminology. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I admit to being astonished that Andy was the one who filed this after seeing that talk page. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. Per BB-PB above. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Rouncival reported by User:OceanLoop (Result: Reporter blocked 48 hours)

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    Page: Le Rêve (opera) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC) "I WANT AN EDIT WAR NOW Undid revision 1308199418 by OceanLoop (talk)"
    2. 02:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1308198551 by OceanLoop (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 02:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Several unjustified reverts by OceanLoop */ Reply"

    Comments:

    explicit request for edit warring; also see User_talk:2A01:E0A:AAA:29B0:21B1:D12F:C166:987A 🌊 oceanloop 02:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

        Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours for three separate 3RR violations of the reported editor's edits as well as those of others. None of those reverts met the exemption criteria. As for Rouncival, they only reverted twice. Statements of intent to edit war are sometimes probative, but since they didn't follow through in this instance, it is irrelevant. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Rouncival was first IP-editing the same stuff; I blocked him for 3RR also. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:2603:7000:D2F0:9780:B198:F2CE:2A8C:4D7A reported by User:Quaerens-veritatem (Result: /64 blocked from article for two weeks)

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    Page: Mickey Hargitay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2603:7000:D2F0:9780:B198:F2CE:2A8C:4D7A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: ‪02:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)‬

    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    1. ‪00:56, 28 August 2025 ‬(UTC)‪‬
    2. ‪04:11, 28 August 2025 ‬(UTC)‪‬
    3. ‪04:37, 28 August 2025 ‬(UTC)‪‬
    ‪4. ‪08:20, 28 August 2025 ‬(UTC)
    All diffs show the user removing the same content without reason, contrary to multiple sources, despite warning.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ‪Warning 05:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No talk page as the removals were unjustified and contrary to multiple sources. See, Comments. On my edit summaries of Mickey Hargitay History at 01:00, 28 August 2025 gave the information "editor did not provide an edit summary and, otherwise, no apparent reason to edit info supported in the article by a reliable source and, further, we use wikiarticle names" and at 04:36, 28 August 2025 stated "see edit 01:00, 28 August 2025" and at 04:59, 28 August 2025 the information "rv unconstructive Wikipedia:disruptive editing & edit warring". Also, user did not respond to the ‪Warning 05:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC).

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Notice 09:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Comments:

    The entry reverted four times so far was supported by the lead and Mickey Hargitay#Personal life: "In May 2025, Mariska Hargitay confirmed that singer-comedian Nelson Sardelli was her biological father, although she had believed Mickey Hargitay to be her biological father until she was 25.[13][14][15][16]" Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

      Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks 2603:7000:D2F0:9780:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked from the article for BLP violations (since his stepdaughter is living and notable). Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Alyo reported by User:2a04:4540:642b:3500:6d99:924e:e396:a4c92A04:4540:640B:1A00:1816:CA64:C44:EF18 (Result: Stale)

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago16 comments5 people in discussion

    Page: Atlanta United FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Alyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user’s reverts:

    1. [10]
    2. [11]
    3. [12]
    4. [13]
    5. [14]

    Previous reverts of other users’ edits:

    1. [15]
    2. [16]
    3. [17]

    Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article/user talk page:

    1. [18]
    2. [19]

    The full name issue has been discussed extensively in the past, with angreement to include the full name in the info box, and a majority of users were in favor of it, see reference 2. above. Alyo has both been informed about and aware of the discussion at the time and their conclusion.

    He unilaterally removed the sourced edit, contrary to a previous compromise reached in the dispute discussion mentioned above on user’s talk page that would retain the full name of the club in the info box:

    1. [20]
    2. [21]

    See reference 2. above, where Alyo himself offered to retain the full name in the info box, and ultimately reneged on it after some time when it went unnoticed.

    Diff of warning that disruptive edits would lead to a report:
    [22]

    Diff of WP:ANEW notice posted to user’s talk page:
    [23]

    Comments: Alyo consistently ignores the process of consensus forming and focuses solely on pushing his WP:POV, with disregard to WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS.

    He conflates similar, but not identical elements to one, such as WP:COMMONNAME and branding/abbreviation versus WP:OFFICIALNAMES and full name; he uses rhetorical sleight of hand to dismiss other users’ points and numerous reliable sources brought forward, sometimes denying them outright, without providing verifiable sources himself for his claim.

    The dismissal of sources extends to official social media presence and websites by the club in question itself. This behavior borders on, or might already constitute WP:OWN and is no longer inside the scope of WP:AFG. Furthermore, while he has formally opened up a discussion on the article talk page, he reverted to his preferred edit before any debate with other editors has been initiated or even any sort of consensus has been established (again), ignoring the previous agreement (references above). This constitues WP:DIS to my view. 2A04:4540:642B:3500:6D99:924E:E396:A4C9 (talk)

    This is an edit warring noticeboard. I can undo my edit (again) to give us time to discuss, but I would like you to make these content arguments on the article's talk page instead of hopping IPs and only responding to reverts. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Correct, I went through the previous discussions and don’t see how this can be resolved without a third party, given your conduct related to the issue. I have no control over how my ISP handles the assignment of IP addresses. -2A04:4540:640B:1A00:1816:CA64:C44:EF18 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC) (talk)Reply
    I went and looked at the discussion on Alyo’s talk page, am I correct in understanding that they’re claiming what a team says about their own name can’t be used because it’s a Primary Source? And that Americans apparently just aren’t capable of understanding what FC stands for and all of them think it’s just meaningless words that teams put at the end of their name?? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That would be the gist of it, yes. There are sources by current and former employees, business partners of the club etc etc, that use the spelled out name - all either »insufficient« or non-valid sources, according to him. Please also note how he has offered to revert his pov-pushing AFTER he was reported in order to »discuss« further, when said discussions have already taken place several times. He moves the goalposts, which is documented in the discussion here [24] (too long to read, but you can spot it just by skimming through), and assumes a position of authority where he exclusively decides what is correct or acceptable -> see modified hidden note in latest diff: [25], and in general the latest comments for his reverts and edits in the history. His response to my warning that I’ll report him if he keeps suppressing sourced edits is also telling: I’ve had this discussion many times before — you’re welcome to try to convince me. [26]. Due to the lack of good faith, this would be a futile attempt, as demonstrated in the previous discussions. --2A04:4540:640B:1A00:1816:CA64:C44:EF18 (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC) (talk)Reply
    Just to clarify, anon, have I had this discussion with you before? Are you one of the accounts who has previously edited the Atl Utd page or with whom I've had this discussion? This is not a gotcha question--I just want to know which points I've already made with you. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No, I’m sorry, I’m not part of some conspiracy against you. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @MilesVorkosigan no, the real answer is much more annoying--American soccer clubs copy the "FC" with no intention of calling their team a "Football Club" because of an appeal to (European) tradition and because it looks cool in FIFA. (Side note: There is no reason to call the team a "club" because in America, our sports organizations are not "clubs" in any way meant by that word in Europe or SA.) Obviously "FC" generally means "football club", but yes, in America the teams do sometimes attach meaningless letters to the end of their team names to appear more European. I cannot stress enough that I agree this is stupid. That said, the name of the team--what the article is about--is just "Atlanta United", or "Atlanta United FC" for branding purposes. The article really should be moved, because the precise name of the team in Major League Soccer, as outlined in the rules of the competition, is just "Atlanta United". No "FC", no "Football Club". Alyo (chat·edits) 13:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This all appears to be completely original research on your part. Have you ever found a single reliable source that says “Americans don’t know what FC means and just use it as letters”?
    If you have not, can you offer any reason why you should not be T-banned from soccer articles? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Lol ok, I was operating in good faith. Take care. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That means you have no sources that agree with you, correct? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I am grateful for him to state this false claim on record here (won’t call it something else, albeit it would be appropriate) -> a few refutations: [27], [28], [29], [30], and most importantly, [31] -> Atlanta United Football Club, LLC (the “MLS Team”). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4540:640C:9000:5D13:B01E:6405:359A (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Again, this is an edit warring noticeboard, not a content mediation noticeboard. Why don't you bring some of this energy to the article talk page, where I'm currently talking to myself? Alyo (chat·edits) 14:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Because this isn’t a content issue, this is a behavioral issue. You apparently have spent a year or more wasting multiple editors time with original research. Persuading you that sources are needed doesn’t seem likely to work. The most efficient way for the encyclopedia to protect itself and save editor’s time seems to be a t-ban. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The content is now being discussed on the article's talk page, which is good. Focusing on content there is correct. In this regard, MilesVorkosigan is right to raise conduct concerns on a noticeboard rather than the article's talk page, but the edit warring noticeboard is unsuitable for it and conduct discussion doesn't resolve the current content conflict. So:
    • Please discuss the content at Talk:Atlanta United FC;
    • if, independently of this one specific content discussion, persistent behavioral issues exist, they can be discussed at WP:ANI with diff links from more than just this article as evidence.
    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Unfortunately, I don’t see how yet another discussion would all of a sudden bring a different outcome. The user has already participated in discussions on this topic with various other editors, which is documented in the links I provided and which he also concedes - see here [32] and here [33]. He violated previous agreements, which I also documented.
    The outcome and his behavior is always the same, so I have to strongly disagree - indulging him in another content-related talk is a waste of time. You can see in this very thread/report that he makes claims which are evidently false (vulgo »lies«). This is bad faith discourse.
    Ultimately, he always forces his ideas through. The impression of a delaying tactic on his part in order to maintain his position without agreeing to an acceptable solution has not been dispelled, on the contrary.
    I, or any other user, cannot constantly provide new sources or arguments in favor of including the full name until he is satisfied and gives his consent. By the way, I am not MilesVorkosigan. --2A04:4540:640C:9000:5D13:B01E:6405:359A (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Sanriogirly04 reported by User:Magical Golden Whip (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

    User being reported: Sanriogirly04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 00:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Kuromi (2005) */They ride tricycles. Not bikes. Tricycles"
    2. 00:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 00:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Kuromi (2005) */The source in the article even refers to them as tricycles."
    4. Consecutive edits made from 22:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC) to 22:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
      1. 22:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Little Forest Fellow (2015) */"
      2. 22:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC) ""
    5. 13:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Little Forest Fellow (2015) */"
    6. Consecutive edits made from 11:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC) to 11:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
      1. 11:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 11:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Little Forest Fellow (2015) */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Edit warring again after released from block. User has been warned several times, and won't stop. Doesn't seem to care from comments on his talk page. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Sigh. I tried to give this user as much rope as possible but continuing to edit war after three blocks for that same reason, and utterly refusing to respomd to feedback or provide any sources is clear NOTHERE behaviour. User is now blocked indefinitely. CoconutOctopus talk 06:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:2001:4455:8075:A100:B594:286:16AE:5F60 reported by User: Jjpachano (Result: Page protected, /64 anonblocked for 3 months)

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Page: JAM Liner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2001:4455:8075:A100:B594:286:16AE:5F60 (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. [34]
    2. [35]
    3. [36]
    4. [37]
    • The edits given are not reverts; but appears to be manually editing of the article each time.



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

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

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

    Comments:
    This IP range must be block due to persistent added wrong destinations and no providing sources. Other pages are also affected including Victory Liner, JAM Liner, JAC Liner, First North Luzon Transit, Genesis Transport, Philtranco, DLTBCo and Vallacar Transit. Jjpachano (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User khogen2410 involved in Edit warring (Result: Page protected)

    edit
    Latest comment: 21 hours ago4 comments2 people in discussion

    Diff pages:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308446946&oldid=1308444415

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308440403&oldid=1308425273

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308441739&oldid=1308440403

    Talk page link: Talk:Param Sundari (film)

    User @Khogen2410 has reverted or deleted my review entries which are from WP: ICTF reliable sources without any reason. Not engaging on Talk page either.

    Violates WP:3RR

    Action requested: Please temp ban the user @Khogen2410


    Computeracct (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User notification on user talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Khogen2410#Notice:_Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computeracct (talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Haydi123 reported by User:Largoplazo (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

    edit
    Latest comment: 22 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Page: Dolma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Haydi123 (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]

    I didn't discuss it on the article's talk page, granted. I did leave an elaborate explanatory edit summary at [44], and the user continues not to respond even after my additional remarks at [45] on their talk page, so it seems unlikely that the user would have responded on the article's talk page either. I'm filing this now despite seeing this requirement because otherwise it seems we'll be stuck: I won't revert their edit again because I don't want to be guilty of a 3RR violation, and if I don't then, if the user doesn't respond on the talk page, I can't show the user continuing to revert after seeing a discussion on the talk page.

    Follow-up: See the comments section below.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]

    Comments:

    Two other editors have also reverted Haydi123's addition, User:Jessicapierce [47] and User:Barseghian Lilia[48].

    Another editor has reverted Haydi123's addition, so I've taken the opportunity to leave this discussion on the article's talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Mariab777 reported by User:Quaerens-veritatem (Result: Partially blocked indefinitely; reporter blocked for 24 hours)

    edit
    Latest comment: 12 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Page: Rita Marley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ‪Mariab777‬ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 03:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    1. 20:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
    2. 21:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
    3. 21:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
    4. 11:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
    User had multiple reverts of the same content before this (Rita_Marley History) and had a previous block for same behavior.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt at Talk:Rita Marley#Was Rita Marley born in Cuba or in Jamaica? plus individually pinged Mariab777 on the Rita Marley Talk Page here: 00:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC) to join the Talk Page discussion, plus gave Mariab777 warnings, request to use Rita Marley Talk Page, etc. in edit summaries, the edit summaries quoted, as follows: "see, Talk:Rita Marley; Notable & Relevant; use Talk:Rita Marley & don't edit war" including at 01:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC).

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 01:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User Mariab777 was previously blocked for two weeks for exactly the same warring behavior at 9 August 2025 (UTC). User has failed / refused to engage in Talk Page discussion. Previous two week block had absolutely no effect. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:82.53.94.121 reported by User:45dogs (Result: )

    edit

    Page: Brake My Wife, Please (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 82.53.94.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 08:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1308753266 by 45dogs (talk)"
    2. 08:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1308687744 by Patient Zero (talk) Really, do you want to stop? What fun is that? Your edits are being undone before your very eyes. Don't persist if you don't want to be banned for vandalism."
    3. 23:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1308681474 by The Raincloud Kid (talk) Did you all perhaps suffer from dyslexia, or you simply don't care what I write? In any case, I've had enough, so stop it, calm down and clear your mind, because this constant defiance here on Wikipedia will not be tolerated."
    4. 22:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1308674651 by Adakiko (talk) Stop it, you and these constant pejorative and unsuitable restorations for an encyclopedic text."
    5. 21:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1306970814 by The Raincloud Kid (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 08:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:1DHNK1 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result:blocked one week)

    edit
    Latest comment: 12 minutes ago4 comments4 people in discussion

    Page: Tajiks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 1DHNK1 (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. [49]
    2. [50]
    3. [51]
    4. [52]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53] [54]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [55]

    Comments:

    1DHNK1 also attempted to remove source info in this article in 2022 and 2023 [56] [57]. They are falsely claiming that the citations they removed do not support the info [58]. They also posted this on my talk page [59]. They were blocked for edit warring (and personal attacks) back in 2019 [60], though they rarely edit, having 224 edits since December 2018. If they were more consistent, I believe they would have been blocked more. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    They are still making reverts.[61] Mellk (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The user reverted the most recent edit back to their previously preferred version. Earlier, they said it needed more sources, and now they came up with a new reason... Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 14:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Edard Socceryg reported by User:AlexBobCharles (Result: )

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Page: Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Bluethricecreamman (talk): Three Pro Palestinian users co operating to play the system :) I will open a case soon"
    2. 22:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Wipka (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 03:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran "See WP:TPO, do not do this again. Undid revision 1308711123 by Edard Socceryg (talk)"

    Comments:

    Repeated reversion of edits and edit warring, usually accompanied by accusations of working for the IRGC. Also in general the users contributions have a very large fraction of reverts. They even tried to revert a Talk message on this pages talk. On an unrelated note: they gamed the system by making the same edit of adding Worlodmeter map to 62 articles about Asia's highways and roads (while having never edited any article related to that topic) in a span of 30 minutes to get to extended confirmed status. AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1308799521"