Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. 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:Gamowebbed reported by User:Lightoil (Result: Declined)

Page: BigBang (South Korean band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 52-whalien (talk) to last revision by Gamowebbed"
2. 06:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1163484355 by 52-whalien (talk)"
3. 17:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1163385194 by Btspurplegalaxy (talk) Removal of sourced content. Discuss at Talk please; WP:BRD"
4. 10:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Btspurplegalaxy (talk) to last revision by Nkon21"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:[1]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User removed content on Bigbangs article because it was unverified, i reverted this but realised my mistake and fixed it. My fixes were reverted by another user, which is considered disruptive as it was properly sourced. Hope this clears it up.Gamowebbed (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Declined Ordinarily I'd consider this blockable even though the fourth revert happened just outside 24 hours. However, the above comment and Gamo having moved on to other articles mitigates against that. But if it resumes, any admin may take any action they see fit without consulting me. @Gamowebbed:, I would also remind you that "proper sourcing", since it is always so debatable, is not by itself an accepted reason to revert without limit ... only where it relates to a living person. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the discretion, i'll stay more vigilant in the future. Gamowebbed (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User:SpaceHelmetX1 reported by User:FMSky (Result: Blocked)

Page: Urban Discipline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: SpaceHelmetX1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Restored sourced material removed without logic or context"
2. 18:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Restored revision 1163603944 by SpaceHelmetX1 (talk): Unexplained removal of sourced material. 2 sources is not a problem. Discuss if you want to remove it now"
3. 18:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Metal Kingdom ref added"
4. 18:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Restored revision 1153147208 by KiranBOT (talk): It was changed by an IP 77.22.168.47 see revision 1157782987"
5. Consecutive edits made from 23:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC) to 23:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
   1. 23:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1157782987 77.22.168.47 (talk): Changed by an IP"
   2. 23:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Urban Discipline."
2. 21:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see talk page as a whole https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpaceHelmetX1&action=history different users including FlightTime (talk · contribs) have left messages

Comments:

single purpose account who does nothing else than genre changes and will go to war with anyone who dares to revert. previously blocked already FMSky (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

But I'm still right and you can check this out SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The reported user User:SpaceHelmetX1 has engaged in long term genre warring. They were previously blocked 24h on June 24 by User:Daniel Case. Since their pattern of genre warring continues (with no usage of article talk pages) I think it is time for another block of SpaceHelmetX1. It is not much of a defense for them to say (above) "I'm still right". Here at the edit warring noticeboard everybody always thinks they are right. Welcome to the club! EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Most of my edits are rollbacks, rollbacks of unsourced content added by IPs. And about the mess that got me here, I'll try to explain calmly what my intention was: Initially, I reverted an IP genre change, right? Soon, the other user reverted my edit, so I provided an extra sourced material, for 2 of the 3 genres present in the infobox, thus getting 2 sources for two different genres using as a ref a website usually used by the other user who wants to block me... This is the order: (2), (2) and (1). SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. These defenses don't make sense. Check out WP:NOT3RR and see if it allows you to revert IPs without penalty, or if it gives you any special tolerance for rollbacks. Though elsewhere we do have special mention of genre warring. If controversial genres need to be changed, it should be done by agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User:MPMdsfbups reported by User:Wpscatter (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

Page: Elinor Wonders Why (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC) to 02:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
   1. 02:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC) "I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE SAYING ELINOR IS CANCELLED!"
   2. 02:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 02:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC) "/* July 2023 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC) on User talk:MPMdsfbups "/* July 2023 */ Reply"

Comments:

User keeps changing page against policy and consensus to say a TV series is ongoing, after being warned and explained why it shouldn't be changed, along with yelling and personally attacking anyone who disagrees. See: 1 (edit summary) 2 WPscatter ^t/_c 04:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week from article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Afterbrew reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Blocked 48h)

Page: Harrison Graham (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Afterbrew (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. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

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

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

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

Comments:
Edit warring across multiple articles to pointlessly go against MOS:GEOLINK. – ².O.^Boxing 08:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48h by Lourdes.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Dora.the.x reported by User:Rastinition (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Zvi Heifetz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dora.the.x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC) "Complete full biography (translated from Hebrew)"
2. 06:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC) "I don’t understand why you keeping changing it. It his biography"
3. 14:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Complete full biography (translated from Hebrew)"
4. 18:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC) "Former editor cut half of the biography. I returned it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Triggering the edit filter."
2. 22:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."
3. 10:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Zvi Heifetz."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked for one week. Given the fact that the user is a WP:SPA and all of the material they have been adding to the article is unsourced, I was tempted to block indefinitely. If there is any resumption of this behavior after expiration of the block, no matter how far in the future (the editor doesn't have many edits and edits sporadically), I recommend an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Jkuman103 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

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

User being reported: Jkuman103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 00:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 00:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 00:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
5. 00:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has made the same vandalistic edit ten times, under ther names Jkuman103 and Jkuman102 in the past twelve hours, and is presumably a sock of Jkuman99, blocked two days ago for the same vandalism. RolandR (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Would have been better to bring this to SPI. I blocked a couple. NinjaRobotPirate blocked at least one. Drmies blocked some as I was blocking some. I don't suppose you'd like to collect them at all (you know more than I because you blocked one without contributions), Drmies, and file a pro forma report at SPI?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  • There's kind of a lot of them, but it looks like Drmies got them all already. I can tag them, which will make me feel like I'm being useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    • You're priceless.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Oh. NinjaRobotPirate is frigging priceless, and I'm chopped liver, Bbb23? Yeah, I thought about SPI, but this is just some childish vandalism, albeit committed by an enthusiast. RolandR, bringing this to 3R is way too much work, esp. for you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

        • @Drmies: Nothing wrong with chopped liver. A staple for many people. Not me, but I have a superior palate. My comment was about NRP's comment, which I thought was a hoot. You know all about hoots down in your neck of the woods, don't you? Now fleeing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

        • Sorry, it was only in the middle of submitting this that I realised that it was not just vandalism (I thought the editor had made ten reverts using the same account) but serial socking. RolandR (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Bbb23 Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Carter00000 reported by User:GWA88 (Result: )

Page: Portal:Current events/2023 July 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Portal:Current events/2023 June 26 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carter00000 (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. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]
5. [11]
6. [12]
7. [13]
8. [14]
9. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

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

Comments:
Carter00000 has been edit warring multiple times with multiple editors on the current events portal in recent times. Most notably on June 26 but again on July 5. He keeps citing WP:ONUS and then using that to remove whatever he wants without regard for others opinions, and ignores WP:PRESERVE. I've been editing the portal now for nine years and he's one of the most prolific edit warring editors I've encountered. I know he's edit war'd with other users as well such as User:IJBall. It's really just a pattern of behaviour which is tantamount to my way or the highway on the current events portal. Even after a discussion was started on the talk page that clearly established consensus he continued reverting it citing WP:ONUS again, making the discussion he started pointless. I don't see him changing this behaviour so I would recommend a block on the current events portal. GWA88 (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also note that Carter00000 appears to have been involved in historical edit war disputes such as here in June 2022 as well as accusations of harassment from another user who has edited the portal in December 2022. GWA88 (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

On the June 2022 diff, I note that I did edit war, but did not exceed 3RR. That being said, edit warring does not require a user to exceed 3RR. I only started editing WP substantively in June 2022 and this was the first time I had a content dispute with other editors. While my conduct was admittedly not up to standard, I think it being my first time, is understandable to an extent.

On the December 2022 diff, I'd note that the allegations evidently unwarranted, given that the user withdrew the allegations just fifteen days later. I would like to express my concern that you presented this as evidence against me. As a long-term contributor to Portal:Current events, you are well aware that this user has disputed the portal over a long period, and my efforts to stop that disruption. You yourself have presented evidence at a ANI filing previously on this user, started by myself.

As a regular contributor to the portal, you are one of those who understands this issue the most, and has benefitted the most from the reduction of disruption from the user. For you to now come here and present these efforts as misconduct on my part is intentionally misleading and could be considered to be casting aspersions.

In closing, I note that the links which you have presented seem to link directly to the editing function, I'm not sure how you managed to do that. After nine years on WP, linking properly should not be a issue for you. Carter00000 (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I admit that my conduct on June 26 was unacceptable. I went past 3RR, and could have rightly been blocked had I been reported. However, I did stop edit warring and apologized to those I edit warred with. As a sign of good faith, I added a section to the material to increase its notability [19], my original removal being based on concerns on whether the entry met the notability standard for inclusion.

I would like to note that I started the discussion for that entry [20], and attempted to discuss the notability of the material, based on the information presented in the sources [21]. While I was overruled 3-1, I note it was not a consensus.

Consensus is not a vote. Consensus is formed after through discussion of the content and based on the strength of the arguments. This did not happen here, as none of the participants actually engaged in the discussion, but simply forced the matter through, refusing to discuss the matter further [22]. It was frustration at this which led me to revert beyond 3RR. Carter00000 (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"This did not happen here, as none of the participants actually eneged in the discussion, but simply forced the matter through, refusing to discuss the matter further.". Well, that just absolutely didn't happen. I argued for its inclusion based on its international coverage and the context of the story within the wider Ukrainian counteroffensive happening at the time. As did, @IJBall while @The Kip noted that previous captures of villages/towns have been included before. How is that "forcing the matter through"? We made our arguments and you just rejected them because you assume your opinion is the right one. And while you did apologize on this occasion, you have continued edit warring and continuing the same behaviour on the portal. GWA88 (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I think any reasonable person would agree that making a single round of replies to a person's initial opening argument, then moving straight to restoring [23] the entry, without even waiting for a reply, would not be considered to be a discussion. Carter00000 (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. it is a discussion. It's also ironic when you say you were frustrated at the content being restored without discussing the matter further because you do exactly the same thing when you revert content. You just revert then say "see talk page" in the edit summary ect.. GWA88 (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because WP:ONUS states that it is your responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion. The fact that I have to start the talk page discussion and direct you to it, is already contrary to policy. It should have been you who started the talk page discussion, being the one who first added the entry. Carter00000 (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous. So you have to start a discussion on the talk page for everything you post on the current events portal? You were the only one with an issue with those highlighted stories. Anyway, I have made my argument. You have been edit warring, awkward and disruptive on multiple occasions on the current events portal. I will now leave this matter to the administrators. GWA88 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not make straw-man arguments. I've only said that you should be the one to open the discussion if you additions are opposed. I have not said that you need to start a discussion for everything you post. Carter00000 (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I stand by my application of WP:ONUS. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This basic policy is something that GWA88 does not seem to understand, despite his tenure editing for nine years. In fact, GWA88 has at times asserted [24], [25], [26], that it is consensus for removal of information which is needed, which is simply not WP:PAG.

I note that I've also had to explain to GWA88 what WP:NOCONSENSUS is today [27], another basic concept, his interpretation being incorrect. Previously, I also explained WP:PRESERVE [28], noting that while some issues can be fixed, a lack of notability of an entry is a violation of core WP policies, and cannot simply be fixed, per WP:CANTFIX. Notability is again a core concept, a concept which GWA88 does not seem to fully understand.

GWA88 frequently reverts those who remove his additions to the portal [29], without starting a discussion. This is edit warring. Each time I've had a content disagreement with GWA88, I have had to be one to start the discussion on the talk page [30], [31], [32]. In this discussion, I made an effort to compromise [33]. It is GWA88's behavior, who constantly reverts other editors with no effort to start a talk page discussion, despite WP:ONUS, which is tantamount to my way or the highway.

Taking into account the WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:IDHT issues illustrated above, I feel that it is GWA88 who may benefit from a block. Carter00000 (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course I don't treat Wikipedia like a battleground. On the contrary, I'll admit when I'm wrong. For example, on Portal:Current events/2023 April 19 I got it wrong and admitted it here [34] as soon as the story was corrected. Nice try at deflecting away from your own bad behaviour on the current events portal though. GWA88 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I also note that this part of what GWA88 has written "I've been editing the portal now for nine years and he's one of the most prolific edit warring editors I've encountered. I know he's edit war'd with other users as well such as User:IJBall" seems to be casting WP:ASPERSIONS. No evidence or diffs have been provided for his statements. I further note that I have not previously edit warred with IJball, having only encountered the editor briefly on this Portal and one other page. Carter00000 (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I've re-added the entry [35] which was the focus of the content dispute for July 5, given the through and convincing rationale [36] put forward by a third editor. Carter00000 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

User:178.237.234.131 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Bride of Chucky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 178.237.234.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 15:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
5. 15:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
6. 15:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
7. 14:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
8. 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
9. 14:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
10. 14:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
11. Consecutive edits made from 14:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC) to 14:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    1. 14:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
    2. 14:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
12. Consecutive edits made from 13:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC) to 14:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    1. 13:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
    2. 14:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
    3. 14:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
13. Consecutive edits made from 09:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC) to 09:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    1. 09:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
    2. 09:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
    3. 09:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ""
    4. 09:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
14. Consecutive edits made from 20:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC) to 21:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
    1. 20:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    2. 21:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    3. 21:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism using multiple IPs on Bride of Chucky."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

LTA, use of multiple IPs from same geo-location (see history of article over past few months) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. @Loriendrew: If they hop to another IP, WP:RFPP is an option.Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Sutyarashi reported by User:208.184.20.226 (Result: Filer blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [41]

Comments:
User committed edit warring on article Sikh Empire, removing existing information and source and even though he is aware of edit warring policy. User reverted 4 times in a span of 24 hrs going against multiple editors and without starting a discussion on a talk page to try to resolve the dispute. User is not new to edit warring.208.184.20.226 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Defense:The first diff which IP has provided[42] is not a revert; while in the other two the IPs (which I suspect are same as that of the reporter) clearly violated WP:HONORIFICS by adding them after the name of certain figures. Multiple editors restored the pre-IP disruption version[43] and ultimately page got protected by Ponyo[44] due to unsourced additions by the IP.

As the page history shows, the restoring was only due to the IP vandalism and was not in any case, edit warring. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• User's comment about reverting due to IP was adding WP:HONORIFICS is blatant lie. The IP 50.*.*.* looks to have actually removed the honorifics as can be seen here [45]. And Sutyarashi reverted the change with misleading description.208.184.20.226 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for block evasion (see User talk:73.236.210.215.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Ponyo! Sutyarashi (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The IP managed to remove only a few honorifics, there were still many more left out added by other IPs that's why the page was restored to the last pre-disruption version. There is also nothing misleading in the edit summaries or "blatant lie"; everything was explained.

The IP vandalism was the reason that the page ultimately got protected. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Jadidjw reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]
5. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [53]

Comments:

Well, it's not within a 24-hour period, but it's during the same period. There is an ongoing discussion, which Jadidjw disregards by continuing their edit warring (WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS). I've lost count on how many times there have been attempts to remove/decrease the Mongol component of the Hazaras in that article. Speaking of which, their behaviour is extremely similar to that of past socks, I'll be filing an SPI in a bit if someone is interested Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not link my account with another account. I don't know what's wrong with my editing, maybe it doesn't match your mood and desire. Jadidjw (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That edit where I added information and sources was not an edit war.

Also, I did not remove the Mongolian component of Hazaras, but corrected it accurately and in detail. Jadidjw (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Hr5accsaz reported by User:Bradv (Result: Page-blocked indefinite)

Page: Stockton Rush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Hr5accsaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC) "Provide WP:RS for license, or call him what he was, an unlicensed engineer."
2. 01:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC) "Redundant, and already clearly stated in 2nd paragraph. If this continues to change then it is going to end up being a WP:EW"
3. 01:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1164119037 by Tvx1 (talk)"
4. 22:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC) "Provide WP:RS of engineering license, otherwise remove, or clarify as unlicensed engineer (e.g. unlicensed medical doctor), or clarify engineer for what entity."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Special:Diff/1162187389

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Stockton Rush#Unlicensed Engineer

Comments:

Hr5accsaz is a single-purpose account, focused solely on getting Wikipedia to say that Stockton Rush was not an engineer. Despite a lengthy section on the talk page where they insisted that someone needed to provide proof of Rush's engineering licence, which no one agreed was necessary, they continue to remove the word engineer from Rush's article. – bradv 01:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The latest edit, rather than removing the word "engineer", changes it to "unlicensed engineer". This is technically even worse, as there are no sources that call him an unlicensed engineer, but many that call him an engineer. Hr5accsaz, however, holds to a rather unique definition of the word engineer that no one else appears to share, and isn't willing to accept either the sources or the consensus of the other editors. – bradv 01:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that the reverts and BLP violations are ongoing and this hasn't received attention from an uninvolved admin, I've reported this at AIV in hopes of getting some eyes on this. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

They're clearly WP:NOTHERE—their eight reverts today have included edit summaries and changes that are intended to be disruptive and targeted at other editors (not readers in general). May be worth noting their behavior on the Talk page was also disruptive, as anyone looking at the linked discussion can see; they proceeded to bludgeon every editor who disagreed with them and even began putting comments about it in other unrelated discussions on the talk page (e.g. [54], see collapsed section in "Occupation" on the same page). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dylnuge: I'm at 3RR right now, but this should probably be reverted. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I saw it and it should be, but engaging in the edit war won't fix the immediate issue; I'm awaiting admin action here and once that's taken we can revert without subjecting the page to further disruptive editing. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite from Stockton Rush. Izno (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

User:BottleOfChocolateMilk reported by User:SanAnMan (Result:No action for now, both editors warned)

Page: 2023 San Antonio mayoral election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2023 San Antonio mayoral election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continues to revert and does not discuss changes except in summary. User appears to have a history of 3RR violations on election articles. SanAnMan (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• lmfao no shot BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• user also engaging in childish behavior by spamming my talk page and making comments such as above. - SanAnMan (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

* Warned BOCM, SanAnMan, both please stop slow edit warring and open up discussions on the relevant talk page to seek consensus. Both of you will get blocked in case you continue slow edit warring any more. Please open up talk page discussions immediately. And do read up on WP:DR. Thanks, Lourdes 06:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)