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:NmWTfs85lXusaybq reported by User:Yaujj13 (Result: No violation)

Page: Jambi Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NmWTfs85lXusaybq (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. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:
Hello, I like to report an edit warring with another user NmWTfs85lXusaybq.

He claimed that my edits are all pro China POV and was 'justly' revert to the correct place. I disagree with him and believe he is lying.

In the Jambi Sultanate, I never added any Chinese POV as not only it neutrally state the history, the sources itself comes from Western origin so the argument does not hold. Plus the edits I made only state the relationship between Jambi and China along with the Dutch as he previously argue that indirect connection are not allowed (the wiki are filled with indirect links). I also wrote what the source stated that I just referenced.

I state my arguments in the talk page and he falsely accuse me of being a Chinese nationalist which none of the content I added are what he claimed. If it was Chinese nationalist, I would be write nonsense like "Jambi is successful because of China". He also unnecessarily think my Fandom/Wikia background compromise my edits in the Wikipedia as I had a same standard of editing for regardless any edit. I know what I write. Yaujj13 (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this come up as I had some contact with these two editors back in April, after they had some interactions that could probably be described as outright edit warring[8]. At the time my attention was drawn to @Yaujj13 because they included blog cites to support some edits. Then the fight between the two broke out and I tried my best to mediate, among other things, calling for @Yaujj13 to slow down as a new editor, and for @NmWTfs85lXusaybq to stop the name-calling.

I think that at the time @Yaujj13was getting out of line a bit with the volume of edits and perhaps a bit of POV pushing. However, @NmWTfs85lXusaybq on my reading was the aggressor at that point because they jumped straight to accusations and Chinese POV name calling.

Neither of these editors seems to talk before reverting, just sniping in edit summaries. If anything they seem to be more candidates for IBAN than a block for edit warning but I'm not advocating for it. Just offering a perspective FWIW. Oblivy (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: there's also an ANI report (which maybe triggered this counter-attack) [9]Oblivy (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User:BoxxyBoy reported by User:Amaury (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: User talk:NinjaRobotPirate (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168828672 by Amaury (talk)"
2. 08:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168828432 by TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) "Stop removing this, it's your talk page" oh it is? Well then according to WP guidelines, I CAN remove it. A: learn to type. B: don't vandalize pages. C: Don't get salty and act like a creep. DO NOT CONTINUE THIS. You did not provide anything of any worth to that page."
3. 08:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Reporting BoxxyBoy */ You stalked my page to find ammunition against me because you were salty about me not letting you vandalize a page I was working on. You are pathetic. I better not receive any more notifications about this."
4. 08:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Reporting BoxxyBoy */ you are literally a stalker"
5. 07:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Reporting BoxxyBoy */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User TheAmazingPeanuts brought a concern to NinjaRobotPirate's talk page, and BoxxyBoy is now refactoring the OP's comments by completely removing the discussion and keeps removing it, even though 1) BoxxyBoy isn't the OP and 2) it's not BoxxyBoy's talk page. Amaury • 08:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

With edit summaries like this, I question whether this user is able to edit collaboratively with others. Amaury • 08:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Both of you are testing my patience. How can you defend someone who KNOWINGLY vandalizes WP and then denies it??? BoxxyBoy (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Bro literally stalked my page because they were salty about being a vandal. Actually shut up and drop the topic . BoxxyBoy (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you're deleting other users' comments, which you're not justified in doing, but your belligerent attitude is almost certainly going to earn you a block. I was on the verge of starting an WP:ANI thread, but this report alone is probably enough to do it. — Czello ^(music) 09:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Am I not justified in being angry? This is absolutely outrageous! This is one of my only hobbies. This is one of the most idiotic things I have seen; when I actually try to STOP a vandal from... you know... VANDALIZING... I get reported?? Look at the edits I have made. I provide good, reliable sources. I ONLY IMPROVE pages, unlike User TheAmazingPeanuts, who has been allowed to make destructive edits. BoxxyBoy (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You're not justified in deleting other people's comments on talk pages that aren't your own. It's a simple as that. — Czello ^(music) 09:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No. It is as simple as not reporting me for attempting to stop a disruptive editor. BoxxyBoy (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:SHOUTING — Czello ^(music) 09:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed it for you boo :P - fyi, I will no longer be responding to this. I have plans assuming I am blocked from editing, so it's not even worth it. I hope you have a heart, or at least some common sense. BoxxyBoy (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@BoxxyBoy: You are the one who is being disruptive by reverting other editors. I try to be reasonable with you by telling you to follow the guidelines [10], but when you remove my comment by telling me to "stay off my page", it's clear that you're not here to work with other editors and are rude and hostile. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've decided to make one final comment. Your edits were vandalism. Why else would I revert them? I am here to provide information. If someone is going to try and ruin a page and I happen to catch it, I'm not going to let it slide. It was "my page" while I was editing it. Anyone is free to provide good and constructive edits. But it seems like you don't understand what that is. You also decided it was okay to stalk my talk page's history, which is incredibly creepy. You should be ashamed. I understand you feel as though you are correct, and while my anger may sway others' opinions to your side, not only are you incredibly incorrect and a vandal, but my anger is also justified. Now I AM SERIOUS. If I receive another notification, I will make sure there are real life consequences. BoxxyBoy (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence alone should now be grounds for an immediate block, as per WP:THREAT. Amaury • 09:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Lol okay. I'm implying a permanent ban from WP, and since it seems y'all's lives center around Wikipedia, they would fall apart. Maybe WP:GetABrain and WP:LeaveMeAlone. BoxxyBoy (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I agreed with Amaury; clearly, the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE) and should be blocked permanently. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"clearly, the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia" How am I not? I've literally been editing pages even after this report. All I want is to add info and not have to deal with this nonesense. SMH.

If you decide to waste the time and try to block me from editing, just know I'll be back with a different username and IP, because no matter how hard you try, I'm not going to let you stop me from sharing information. Maybe instead of wasting your time, try helping improve the site like yours truly? BoxxyBoy (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? It's not vandalism. Vandalism is a deliberate, malicious attempt to disrupt the project. Any good-faith edits aren't vandalism. WP:AGF. — Czello ^(music) 10:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Buddy was literally making it harder for me to edit on purpose. By ruining the format, it was harder to navigate the site. Yes. That was deliberate and malicious. It was not, in fact, good faith. BoxxyBoy (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

A sixth revert. — Czello ^(music) 09:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Wappy2008 reported by User:The Banner (Result: Blocked)

Page: Larnaca International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wappy2008 (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. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I have not tried to discuss this on the talk page of the article, as the editor is unresponsive there. Instead, i reached out to his own talk page (here) only to be met with accusation of not knowing the rules. The editor is involved in a slow edit war and seems to claim to be the only one with proper knowledge (ownership) of the subject.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

Comments:
Slow editwar with two editors and ownership issues. The Banner talk 13:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User @The Banner is using irrelevant accus. Posting random warning messages even if no rules has been over crossed. Refusing to use talk page or using Wiki project page to discuss his concern. He is breaking revert rules on different pages as per his contribution history. Please refer to my talk page for further evidence. User was on main discussion or noticeboard by several users back in February 2023 for the same thing and now he is back with same way of editing and by not following right procedures. I have been politely asking to discuss all his concerns (evidence on my talk page). Thank you Wappy2008 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Reference: Wappy2008 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month This keeps happening. Doing it slowly is no less disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

References

User:Sniff snaff reported by User:Trey Maturin (Result: Resolved through discussion)

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.

---

On Democratic Socialists of America, new user Sniff snaff (talk · contribs) is adding a criticism section sourced to a Medium blog post and to Twitter, saying, in the face of WP:MEDIUM, that nothing on Wikipedia prevents the use of random blog posts on Medium being used to source accusations. I disagree, but my reverts are being reverted and I'm not prepared to edit war. Further eyes would be useful. — Trey Maturin™ 15:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! User User:Trey Maturin continues to avoid the simple question of whether they read the citation in question or not. Wikipedia does not smile upon such shoddy editing. Trey: did you read the citation or not? Sniff snaff (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Schizo15523 reported by User:Vinegarymass911 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Noakhali Zilla School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Schizo15523 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168873900 by Vinegarymass911 (talk) broaded"
2. 15:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168866102 by Mean as custard (talk) enhanced"
3. 15:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168863456 by Mean as custard (talk) enhanced text"
4. 13:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168837302 by Mean as custard (talk) enhanced text with current info"
5. 05:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168691771 by Mean as custard (talk) The article has been significantly enriched with comprehensive details about various clubs. This enhancement brings a deeper understanding of the club activities, objectives, and member benefits. Readers can now delve into a wealth of information, making their experience more informative and enjoyable."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Noakhali Zilla School."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A temporary ban would help the user slow down. The user has chosen not to engage and has repeatedly inserted promotional content. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by me after reading the AIV report. Spam/promo-only account. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User:67.149.160.101 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 67.149.160.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168944852 by Untamed1910 (talk) for the umpttenth time the removal is not the claimed 'unexplained' read previous edit siummaries and stop furthering what you say you are trying to stop."
2. 02:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168943249 by FenrisAureus (talk) no reason given for restoration"
3. 02:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168942543 by FenrisAureus (talk) the section is howling at the moon, feet stomping, they had better than someone else and is completely absurd to list in an article."
4. 01:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168940971 by FenrisAureus (talk) the content is about technology, which is used every day, what next shoe technology of some countries, or diet regimens. Also to the reverter please read the edit summaries."
5. 01:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168939920 by FenrisAureus (talk) not vandalism, the section is a storm in a tea cup and not something which is anything belonging of being on here.What next we have a whole section on wealthy nations shoe technology of rowing blades, come one this is how sport works"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics."
2. 03:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* August 2023 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Stop removing sourced content */ new section"

Comments: A first edit cannot be a revert and the other two editors including the one who has made this report are complaining of behaviour which they are engaged in. This is ironic as a report and the person making the report is only using what they think the policy says and not what it actually says, they have also clearly demonstrated they are simply counting up to three reverts before they stop doing what they are doing, which is clearly prohibited. Just look at the whole page in question and my talk page. This was also pointed out on this page when another user clearly pointed out multiple people involved inedit warring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Page protected There's too many reverts by too many editors. A discussion has been started on the talk page, I suggest all editors involved use it and come to a consensus regarding the content. Aoidh (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for forcing some sense on to this issue, and maybe a slap with a wet fish to the person who made this report. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  They were right to bring it here. - Aoidh (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  In that case then irony is truly dead when they are bringing a report about behaviour they are doing themself. I also note they did not report the third person involved...is this kind of single person targeting and complaining about behaviour one is doing oneself actually how things work on Wikpedia? 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  When a report is made here, all involved parties are scrutinized, including the filer. I'm not sure what the issue is here. - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I also note the discussion on the article talk page was started 2 minutes before this report was filed with one line saying "You should not be removing sourced content regardless." nothing on the content and clealrly no intention to engage on the subject, just clearly to tick some box to make this report requirements met.

  I would just like to point out that I simply saw junk content on a page and got rid of it and the top of the page encouraged me to do so. Instead i had two users who looking in to it further appear to be using automated software or an automated process. Something called "Twinkle" and something called "RedWarn". These things were linked in the history and their edit summaries. These appear to show what an automated system is believing to be 'vandalism' and the replies from the users clearly show no reading of the reasons i gave. They both kept saying 'unexplained' when I left details in the edit summary, and kept on saying it was 'unexplained' when I laid out reasons to these people. I even invited one person to give reasons, which they have not done. This seems to me to be people using an automated system not reading things being done, biting another persons head off, and then stonewalling with the same thing over and over. This surely cannot be how this place is meant to operate, can it? 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:2826:500:3720:B530:6D45:29FC reported by User:Linkin Prankster (Result: Page protected for a year)

Page: List of Amazon Freevee original programming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:4040:2826:500:3720:B530:6D45:29FC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

Comments: The IP user I complained last time has also been endlessly edit warring on other pages besides List of programs broadcast by The CW. I asked for protecting List of Amazon Freevee original programming, but admins only noticed The CW one. That might have been my fault as I didn't only listed it in the long comments and nowhere else. The user has been repeatedly edit-warring on List of Amazon Freevee original programming and List of Peacock original programming. Therefore I request the admins protect both these pages for a long while too as they won't stop. If you view the history of the pages you can see they've been edit warring on one thing or another for months [27] [28]. Linkin Prankster (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user: As I can conclude:

1. Edit warring happened almost one month ago, and
2. The IPs involved in this and the other mentioned article are from the 2600:4040:2800::/40 range, derived from the larger 2600:4000::/24 from the state of Virginia. Go to the contributions of the first range to verify.

ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 14:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@ToadetteEdit: Because this is a long-term abuse behaviour, the user comes back to make the same edits or type od edits every time after their block expires or the page protection expires, this isn't the first time nor the only page they've edit warred on. This has been going on for a while, even before I got involved and they've blocked thrice for the same behavior as you can see here, here and here.

You can see the user starting edit warring on List of Amazon Freevee original programming the first time since at least May 2023 with this edit: [29], [30], [31]

You can see the user starting edit warring on List of Peacock original programming the first time since at least May 2023 with this edit: [32], [33], [34]

Listing every revert of theirs of course would be too long and impossible. I've listed some reverts here only as an example of their long-term abuse, sorting through them itself was a pain. You can see all their reverts on the history pages of the two articles [35] [36].

As for their IP range itself, it does seem to be 2600:4040:2800::/40. I've requested admins to implement a 6 month anonymous editing ban (not a full block) on it in past to force the user to create an account to discuss their edits, but have been unsuccessful. Linkin Prankster (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Linkin Prankster I noticed this exact comment was initially posted by Roman Reigns Fanboy[37] before being swiftly self-reverted[38] and then being reposted by you[39] moments later (and then you changed the signature[40]). Are you operating multiple accounts? — Czello ^(music) 17:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes I do operate multiple accounts, one for films and another for TV to keep the two topics separate and manage them better. Occasionally I cross over to the other account's topic with my one account but not much. But since Wikipedia doesn't allow operating multiple accounts, I didn't admit it until being caught. I never use my account to get involved with supporting edits of the other account in a dispute (though I might edit the same page as them occasionally). Regardless, I apologize. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Having alternate accounts is permitted in some instances, but they must always be clearly labelled as such. Please add a template to both account user pages making this clear - there's some userboxes you can user here. — Czello ^(music) 17:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was unaware of that. I will do so, thank you for understanding. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I've placed the templates on both of my accounts and specified why I have multiple accounts on both of them. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Page protected for one year. This is really the better option ... there are too many IPs, and the likelihood of strong collateral damage from wide rangeblocks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, if there are any more pages they might be edit warring since a long while on, I'll request a long-term page protection on WP:RFPP in future. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: They are also edit-warring on List of Peacock original programming as I showed. I also requested protection for that page, so I hope you can do so. Thank you again. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That page protected for a year as well. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Alaska4Me2 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Page protected)

Page: Herod the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Alaska4Me2 (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 15:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC) to 15:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 15:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Architectural achievements */"
   2. 15:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* New Testament references */ most and majority are not encyclopedic without references to completely support such editorial commentary"
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC) to 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 15:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169020138 by Tgeorgescu (talk)returning neutrality and encyclopedia language to this small area of the article"
   2. 15:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   4. 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* New Testament references */"
3. 15:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169018760 by Tgeorgescu (talk) returning neutrality and encyclopedia language to this small area of the article."
4. 14:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "removed from beginning of article as it should be in the main body; changing to encyclopedic wording, removing guessing and commentary"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Herod the Great."
2. 15:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Herod the Great."
3. 15:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Herod the Great."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ WP:RS/AC is a very important part of our WP:RULES"
2. 15:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ How is that for neutrality?"
3. 15:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ sign"

Comments:

I just want to say that if WP:RS/AC has been abolished, I certainly did not get the memo. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Reporting party made no serious attempt to discuss either at my talk page or the article talk page. Article talk page comments were made about edit warring with snarky commentary in the description of their edits and my edits at the talk page. His snarky commentary has also filtered into their comments here, too. The talk page edits were, I believe, made after this report was filed or with no time passing in order to wait for a discussion to take place before filing this report. I stand by my edits and see no valid reason why the reporting party couldn't have truly tried to discuss. It feels to me as if they are upset I changed something at a page they might be gatekeeping. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your charge that Otherwise, you're just appearing to be the article gatekeeper who is keeping anyone new from changing what's already there, then yes, if someone is removing WP:RS/AC from the article, I am hell-bent for keeping WP:RS/AC inside the article. WP:RS/AC is not subjective in Wikipedic parlance.

Did I discuss badly? Well, the pot is calling the kettle black. You wrote absolutely nothing on the talk page of the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note Tgeorgescu, what do you see the edit you label as nr 4 (=the first of the putative reverts) as a revert of, or to? How is it a revert? I notice you have failed to fill in the "Previous version reverted to" field in your report. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: #4 is a revert, since they have deleted although most Herod biographers do not believe that this event occurred.<ref name=Maier>{{Cite book |last= Maier |first= Paul L. |chapter= Herod and the Infants of Bethlehem |editor1-last= Summers |editor1-first= Ray |editor2-last= Vardaman |editor2-first= Jerry |title= Chronos, Kairos, Christos II: Chronological, Nativity, and Religious Studies in Memory of Ray Summers |publisher=[[Mercer University Press]] |year= 1998 |pages= 170–171 |isbn= 978-0-86554-582-3 |chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=mWnYvI5RdLMC&pg=PA169}}</ref>. Revert meaning undoing someone else's edits, and deletion is a way to undo someone else's edits.

  So I don't read "revert=restoring their own past edits", but "revert=undoing someone else's edits".

  Since, obviously, at #4 they were not restoring their own edits, but simply undoing someone else's work. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be saying any deletion is a revert. It is not. If you can't tell me what the previous version reverted to is, that edit is not a revert. I understand that there is a problem, but I think you're at the wrong board. Unless you have a better explanation for me, I'm considering fullprotecting the article and inviting both of you to discuss on talk. I have to agree your use of article talk hasn't been very helpful so far; it's impossible for somebody coming from outside to understand what you're talking about there. User:Alaska4Me2, yours has been worse — you haven't posted on talk at all. Can you give me a reason not to fullprotect, Tgeorgescu? Bishonen | tålk 16:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: I will copy/paste the WP:PAG

  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.

  Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not very relevant. Take a look instead at the definition of a revert, here: "reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version". Why do you think this board has a "Previous version reverted to" field? I gave you an opportunity to object to fullprotection of the page — I thought you might have some alternative suggestion — wanting to take it to ANI? — but I guess not. The article has been protected. Please both of you discuss on talk and try to reach an agreement. For dispute resolution, since only two editors are involved, WP:3 might be helpful. Bishonen | tålk 16:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC).

User:85.76.164.111 reported by User:TLJ7863 (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Raimo Olavi Toivonen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 85.76.164.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "I am Raimo Olavi Toivonen and I have copyrights to my home page "https://www.pitchsys.fi/copyright_protected_ISA_site/Works.html""
2. 18:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "I refuse to link to an illegal copy of my ISA site that infringes my copyright"
3. 17:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "You must not publicly infringe Raimo Olavi Toivonen's copyright "https://www.pitchsys.fi/copyright_protected_ISA_site/Works.html""
4. 13:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Has been done as you can see "Skyerise: archive.org has removal procedures, use them undo""
5. 06:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC) ""https://www.pitchsys.fi/copyright_protected_ISA_site/Works.html" really means that "pitchsys.fi" site may not be copied to any archive."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP seems to be connected to this recent sockpuppet investigation. Skyerise (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to add, just to clarify, the user believes that an archive link citation is a copyright violation. They've had multiple warnings and are now getting rather disruptive and edit warring. TLJ7863 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As I can conclude that the range 85.76.0.0/16 is currently blocked from editing this article. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 20:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct – the /16 range around this IP address is already partially blocked from editing the article about Raimo Olavi Toivonen. Special:Contributions/85.76.164.111 is now also blocked sitewide for two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User:92.184.117.94 reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: 48 hour block)

Page: Sayaka Kanda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 92.184.117.94 (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. 05:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.4)"
2. 05:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sayaka Kanda."
3. 05:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Sayaka Kanda."
4. 05:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Sayaka Kanda."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Malformed report, but blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing following a report at WP:AIV. PhilKnight (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:CrashLandingNew reported by User:Sutyarashi (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]
5. [45]

[46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [48]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [49]

Comments:
Plus, the reported user has already made repeated personal attacks on me by calling me a Vandal without any evidence of it.[50][51]. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no edit warring on my part. The user who has reported me has removed well-defined citations for reason best known to him. The edit summaries for removing those citations are inexplicable. The page under consideration is Hyder Ali and the subject is his ancestry. I have added multiple sources from reliable publishers, mentioning the ancestry of Hyder Ali in great detail but due to some reason User:Sutyarashi removes those citations because he thinks they are not good enough. When i restore them, I am accused of edit warring. The reason for removal his best known to him. CrashLandingNew (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I've left sufficient reasons, both on talk page and as edit summaries, on why these self-publish and colonial sources are not suitable for use. Instead of engaging there, you've already reverted more than half a dozen times on the article. Clearly edit warring, and I dare say, pushing your POV there. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources I've added are colonial or self-published. The ones which fell under those categories were removed. The sources added by me are by reputable publishers, who have been mentioned. I've not call anybody vandal but removing well-defined sources is vandalism and I've only pointed it out. As far as POV is concerned, I can say that for Sutyarashi too. He does seem to have a bias for proving the ancestry of the subject from a certain region. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

No, they are not reliable, I've already mentioned this so on talk page[52]. Also, the main issue here is your edit warring; I had already tried settling dispute at talk page, but in no vain. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

They are reliable. You've made no attempt on talk page. You remove these sources and then leave a summary on talk page, explaini why you removed those citations, i.e. not discussion. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The edit warring is on your part for you removed my sources without any valid reason. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Any evidence of your claims? Sutyarashi (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edits and removal of citations is available in edit history of the page. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You've reverted 6 times within 24 hours; Am I right? Sutyarashi (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

How? Provide the list of reversions. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user: Based on revision history,

1. The edit warring has been long since March 13
2. The reported user was blocked for a week in April
   • Both users are EC now and won't stop.

ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 09:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have only a single reversion at article and tried to discuss it on the talk page multiple times. As for edit warring, yes, CrashLandingNew repeatedly accused me of being a sock then and started reversions [53][54][55], without a single evidence of it. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You've made no attempt on talk page. You remove these sources added by me and then leave a summary on talk page, explaining why you removed those citations. That is not discussion. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Has there been any similar reports from the same page before? ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 09:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The block was due to another page and an other user was also blocked. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

1. The reporting user wasn't blocked (clean log)
2. Please provide evidence.

ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 09:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mean him. I meant the user who reported me for that abovementioned block in April this year. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Who is he then? ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 09:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This guy. We were blocked together on 9th April this year. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

In case you've not noticed by now, the problem here is not that who reported you and not even your block history, but that you've already violated WP:3R rule at the article. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

plus, the other user was unblocked afterwards by 331dot. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Coz he made a request for unblock and I didn't. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

3R, where? CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

CrashLandingNew and Sutyarashi, I'm happy to see that you are currently discussing this on the article's talk page. CrashLandingNew, I can't see vandalism nor sockpuppetry there; please stop casting aspersions, especially in edit summaries where you can't remove them after having noticed that you're wrong. Vandalism in Wikipedia's terms is intentional damage done to the encyclopedia, and neither of you is intentionally damaging the encyclopedia.

As this is a long-term conflict that would greatly benefit from uninvolved experienced editors, please stop making edits that you know someone else objects to there. You both, CrashLandingNew and Sutyarashi, have disruptively taken over the majority of the edit history. If you continue reverting, or adding material that is currently under discussion without a clear consensus on the talk page, I'll probably place a three-month block from editing the article, or a sitewide one if the personal attacks continue. Create an RfC and/or add a discussion invitation to a central noticeboard like WP:NPOVN to find a consensus; see the dispute resolution policy for further options.

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree I'm ok with this state of affairs, although there was obvious violation of WP:3R by CrashLandingNew. Anyways, should the disputed bits be removed (temporarily) till they are thoroughly discussed on the talk page (by possibly involving other editors)? Sutyarashi (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sutyarashi, perhaps they should be removed, but not by you. If an experienced uninvolved editor implements WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN, that may be fine; if you do, you're continuing an edit war. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree Right. Can you do so, by restoring the page to revision[56]Before which all this saga started? Sutyarashi (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  No. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Тимофей Васильченков and User:DavidDijkgraaf reported by User:DuncanHill (Result: 7 day partial block each )

Page: Assault on Nijmegen (1702) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Тимофей Васильченков (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and DavidDijkgraaf (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. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]
4. [60]

And many many more.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

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

Comments:

I'm not involved, but my watchlist is full of these two. DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the place to give my perspective, if not, delete it. I have made over 2,500 edits and always try to work together with others. This always went in a civil way until now. I have asked this editor countless times to discuss our differences on the talkpage and he refused each time. His was also a problem on the Battle of Malplaquet page were every other user involved tried to work something out. @Eastfarthingan @Robinvp11 also commented on the problems I had with with the user in question. It left me really frustrated, and I probably should have sought some oversight earlier, but I did it before Duncan left a comment. I asked @Cinderella157 to check it out. I understand that edit warring isn't acceptable, but this is what happened. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked both users for 7 days from the article. I strongly advise they use this time to resolve the dispute on the article talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:199.83.163.6 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )

Page: Isaiah 42 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 199.83.163.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC) to 09:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 06:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Isaiah 42."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

More reverts in the previous days. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Delfield reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: )

Page: Juan Branco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "More neutral"
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC) to 23:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 23:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Relevant comment by a minister of government"
   2. 23:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "See talk page"
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC) to 23:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 23:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "See talk page / This is more specific that simply saying that there was "a claim""
   2. 23:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Limited addition, other ones to be discussed"
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC) to 15:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 15:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Nemov: you have a history on POV pushing on this article, siding with sockpuppets promotional edits, you are not an admin and cannot "caution" me. These are small improvements of content deleted without any justification"
   2. 15:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Neutrality"
5. 15:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Deleted relevant information"
6. Consecutive edits made from 15:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC) to 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 15:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "neutrality"
   2. 15:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "neutrality"
   3. 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Deleted relevant information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Juan Branco."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It looked like Delfield was going to stop edit-warring a little earlier, but they returned to it after what looks like some very contentious discussion by them and others on the article Talk page. I am WP:INVOLVED. Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I literally implemented what another user and I were discussing in talk page, I am reverted without any explanation and I would be the one edit-warring?!

I added some limited stuff to find a middle ground on what content to be made, this is NOT edit warring.

The two other users are NOT using talk page, except just to say that I should discuss more, but without commenting on content, THEY are the ones edit-warring.

--Delfield (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)