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:Ioan.Church reported by User:Anupam (Result: Page protection raised to EC)

Page: Anabaptist theology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ioan.Church (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6][7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

• User:Ioan.Church has been edit warring to include unsourced information that he bases on 7thdaybaptist.blogspot.com. He has created multiple redirects to the non-notable internet group mentioned in this blogspot website that have been nominated by deletion by other editors. After he was warned by User:Ratnahastin, he responded by mocking that user. Anupam^Talk 00:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

None of the links you provided show reverts of the article to the exact same conditions it was before because of intermediate edits by other people. Moreover the reverts are not within 24 hours. In order to meet the criteria for 3 revert rule the article will have to be reverted to the exact same condition 3 times within 24 hours. Your best option is to assume good faith and engage in constructive discussion to arrive at concensus. Concensus means a compromise where all disputing parties let go of bruised egos and give concessions. I have shown time and again that I am ready to do that. Most of my edits are on the talk page not on the article. All that is required here is for you to allow due weight in mention of the minority historical opinion which is represented by more than twice the population as the only 1035 Dunkards whose opinion is currently being presented as if it were the majority. Ioan.Church (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggest an admin check to see if @Ioan.Church has made the reversion by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:2C7:67F:7AD0:A89C:36B1:1E0A:7F8D while logged out, and if the brand new user @Emetpodcast is a duplicate account. It seems very suspicious; both came to the page and made reverts without engaging in the talk page. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If you would like that done you need to go to SPI, not here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I am happy for a qualified admin to go ahead and raise a checkuser request on all of us. I have nothing to hide and my edits are all in good faith. Ioan.Church (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Page protected I raised the semi-protection imposed earlier to extended-confirmed for the duration so that Ioan will not be able to edit the page and continue to restore poorly sourced content, or content that misinterprets or misstates what is reported in reliable sources, in disregard of apparent consensus on the talk page. Essentially he is blocked from editing this article without anything going in his block log (And keep it that way, Ioan. Your attitude hasn't helped your case here). It would, I imagine, help if more of the editors knowledgeable about this sort of thing were recruited to this discussion to make for a stronger consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case Thank you for stepping in. You are correct that "if more of the editors knowledgeable about this sort of thing were recruited to this discussion to make for a stronger consensus." Three editors disputing a topic is slim "community consensus" at best. But the topic is probably unique enough that getting several more truly knowledgeable editors on board the discussion could be difficult.If disruption continues when protection is over, perhaps that would be the route to take. I did something like that some years ago with another article, but forget the process. Mikeatnip (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

User:RBG8877 reported by User:Patken4 (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Keith Law (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:RBG8877 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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:

User:RBG8877 keeps adding unencyclopedic, unsourced information to an article of a living person. Patken4 (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. I have added a link to the living person's own words as a citation. Sorry but if that isnt "reliable" i dont know what is. RBG8877 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This is an obvious WP:BLP problem and per WP:BLPRESTORE even restoring this once would be a problem, let alone 4 times. MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have added a CTOPS notice to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Mushy Yank reported by User:Counterfeit Purses (Result: Declined)

Page: Shariq Hassan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mushy Yank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15] reverting redirect (AFD closure)
2. [16] revert, no talk page discussion
3. [17] revert, no talk page discussion
4. [diff]

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: [18]

Comments:
The article was redircted as the result of an AFD in December. Since then, another film which includes Shariq Hassan in the cast has been released. Mushy Yank apparently feels that this negates the AFD. They have signaled their intention to edit war in the statement "NO. This is a useless bureaucratic action. The subject"s notability HAS CHANGED. Even the Afd itself makes a case for a standalone page. JUST READ IT and read the guidelines about page recreations. Thank you". Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Counterfeit Purses, please have a look at WP:G4 and its restrictions. You're practically requesting a G4 deletion in a case that isn't covered by the policy: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." This may well be the case, and discussion instead of speedy deletion (or blanking/redirecting) is the best approach in such a situation.

If you believe the article needs to be redirected again, please start another deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) +1 I had just finished typing out a long decline saying the same thing. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Heh, thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

User:FMSky reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Stale / warned / voluntary pause)

Page: Sweet Baby Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FMSky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Multiple, see inline below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:50, 17 March 2024 Restored a NPOV/POV tag he had added several hours earlier, after it was removed by another editor
2. 05:06, 18 March 2024 Partially restored of an earlier version that was reverted for being a close paraphrase
3. 15:42, 18 March 2024 Partially reverted text that had previously been removed for proseline issues, as a result partially restoring text from the edit at 05:06, 18 March.
4. 18:00, 18 March 2024 Restored the exact same text from the 15:42, 18 March edit after it had been reverted by another editor
5. 19:16, 18 March 2024 Removed text that had been added over two edits on 11 March and 14 March
6. 19:20, 18 March 2024 Partially reverted to restore text from 19:16, 18 March edit after it had been undone

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:43, 17 March 2024 3RR warning yesterday, after a violation of 3RR, resolved by FMSky self-reverting
2. 21:54, 17 March 2024 3RR warning yesterday, after another violation of 3RR, edit was undone by another editor and FMSky acknowledged as "already done"
3. 18:12, 18 March 2024 3RR warning today, after another violation of 3RR, acknowledged by FMSky as "This wasnt an edit war, i suggested multiple different versions"
4. 19:31, 18 March 2024 Second 3RR warning today

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

FMSky has now received 4 3RR warnings in the last 48 hours, made by my count 6 reverts in the last 24 hours, and at least 11 reverts in the last 48 hours. 4 of which were for content removed on good-faith BLP objections (see diffs in warning #1). Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

yes like already stated on my talk page, these were all separate issues in different sections of the article. I didn't edit war to restore same versions over and over again. FMSky (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. (emphasis from the original). Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

How is it even a revert if I made completely seperate unrelated edits to the page? However, I get that people dont like my edits on this page for whatever reason, and will stay away from the article for the near future --FMSky (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Per Help:Reverting 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. Each of the diffs listed above restore the text of the article to an earlier revision of the article, some of those earlier revisions (like for diffs 2, 3, 4, and 6) were edits by yourself from earlier today or yesterday that had themselves been undone by other editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, guess im screwed then --FMSky (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th and FMSky, the article would likely benefit from others being able to edit it without interference from both of you, who have reverted and edited quite assertively there in the last days. Can you both step back from the article for a week? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That was actually what I was originally thinking. A self-imposed 1 week topic ban. Would be better for my health too lmao --FMSky (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm don't think I agree with your reading of the situation here. Yes I've been assertive on my reverts against FMSky over the last two days, but I'm not the only editor who has been reverting FMSky. Yes I've made six reverts in the same time period, however two of those are exempt from the edit-warring policy per WP:3RRBLP and WP:BLPRESTORE, and one was because FMSky was adding content against a rough consensus. Only one other editor has been reverted in the same time period, by another editor, for introducing phrasing that was unverifiable to the sources. The issue at play here surrounding edit warring from FMSky in a contentious topic formed part of the basis of his indef AE TBAN from Operation Underground Railroad and Tim Ballard, and his 1 year ANI TBAN from transgender-related topics. I would argue that this is more of the same behaviour in a closely adjacent culture war topic.

However if after reading what I've said in the paragraph above you truly think it would be helpful for me to step away from the article for a few days to a week, then sure I'll do so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

adding content against a rough consensus Just a quick note that this consensus doesn't actually exist and this part was even previously inserted by a user who is on your side of the "culture war" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweet_Baby_Inc.&diff=next&oldid=1213417205 --FMSky (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

My "side of the 'culture war'" could not be less relevant to consensus nor the edit itself—it was allowed to be reverted regardless of who added it, and I agree with its removal. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Another example of a recent user complaing about bias on this site: 1. The only people who are still in favor of supressing the information are basically Sideswipe9th and Aquillion. I think an RfC could solve all the problems --FMSky (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, the article hasn't been edited for over 24 hours since I asked you both to pause, and I'd say this shows that the main source of dispute and disruption has stopped editing. Whether that includes you or not isn't something I can prove this way, but chances are that your contributions (including any exempt from the edit warring policy) were optional and someone else would have performed them early enough in case they were actually severely needed. The article currently probably needs neither your nor FMSky's editing, and persistent issues with FMSky's edits should probably separately be dealt with at WP:AE or WP:ANI. A 24-hour strict 3RR block against everyone who formally "reverted" more than three times during a phase of highly active editing, after over 24 hours of no edits, doesn't seem to be a real option. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

User Rhain just violated 3RR too (1, 2, 3, 4) -- FMSky (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Then it would be a good idea to let him know on his talk page and give him a chance to self-revert. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That fourth edit is not a reversion—but, to echo Dumuzid, you're more than welcome to contact me directly or just report me as well, rather than informally mention me here without notification. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I also find it a bit concerning that Sideswipe9th seems to want to silence every user not agreeing with their viewpoint, having already filed a report for another user yesterday and proposing excessive topic bans https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1214137303 Its getting increasingly hard to believe this user is acting in good faith --FMSky (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• FMSky is a very blatant POV editor on this topic who has been actively trying to push the usage of unreliable sources on the talk page for a couple days now. They have been edit warring with multiple editors in order to try and push claims in the article proper that are either not supported by the reliable sources used or trying to utilize aforementioned unreliable sources. Silverseren^C 00:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  I expected nothing else from you -- FMSky (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  My view as a bystander, recently created user, who has read through the talk page over and over again can attest to FMSky’s grievances. Though as previously stated I am a new user so my view on this matter may mean little. Verte34 (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Broader issues should probably be taken to WP:AE (since Sweet Baby Inc. falls under the gensex WP:CTOP per here.) WP:3RRN is just for putting out the immediate fire. --Aquillion (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Stale / warned / voluntary pause ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Tdadamemd19 reported by User:Robynthehode (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page: Solar System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Tdadamemd19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "DUMMY EDIT - Robynthehode (talk), the WP:Rollback policy you cite clearly states at the very top that "occasional exceptions may apply". Yet for some reason, you present it as some kind of absolute. This likewise ingnores WP:IAR. The ultimate Wikipedia Policy. I presented very clearly my rationale for reverting. The info continues to be LACKING in this article. Nowhere presented visually."
2. 17:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214384087 by Remsense (talk) Talk Section added. Please read the argument for keeping this before anyone here acts on any urge to revert this vital info. Alternatively, if anyone has a better image to convey this info, I would be ALL FOR THAT. The argument is that something is better than nothing."
3. 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214382646 by Remsense The entire world has visceral experience with a football field. A soccer pitch is essentially the same size. And a yard is not a foreign concept either, as it too compares quite closely with a meter. As for being unencyclopedic in style, I suggest to all that this is a WORTHWHILE compromise, until such a more 'professional looking' image is made. The INFO is far more valuable."
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC) to 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
   1. 16:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Distances and scales */ It has been a decade since this image was published to Wikipedia. It is a rare depiction of BOTH sizes AND distances shown to scale. This is information which has been lacking in this article. Images presented to the public here have shown only one or the other. Never both. It is high time that this image be included here. This is VITAL info to be included in this article. It is one thing to say it in words, but quite another to actually show it visually."
   2. 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Distances and scales */ Adding link to an article which explains how the human eye sees, with background objects toward the distant 'vanishing point' appear much smaller than objects in the foreground."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Rambling Rambler reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

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

Comments:
User's consistent removal of cited work in WP:LEAD. User's initial reasoning: "Absolutely not the place for it, even if it wasn't using questionable sources." Upon user's second reversal, user states, "WP:ONUS warrants consensus for inclusion". --In my experience ONUS has not been too clear on the matter, leaving itself open for interpretation stating that it is "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." --However, there is currently one (single) user in dispute, not two or more, which is another reason why I had restored the article while stating this concern on the article's talk page in a willingness to discuss further. Warned user to not end up breaking WP:3RR in my restoration edit and began engaging in talk discussions as per the user's request. User ignored the warning on the restoration edit and also ignored the warning rendered on user's talk page while promptly removing the issued warning.

Furthermore, upon user's third reversible, instead of engaging in the article's talk page with me, user was preoccupied making an edit change to another article I had recently edited by altering my wording which is in direct relation to the aforementioned article. (See: Jimmy Chérizier user's edit], my edit). Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no violation of the 3RR here, because it's only on the 4th revert that it becomes a technical infringement. Furthermore, I agree with Rambling Rambler that the added material is not of sufficient importance to include in the lead of this sovereign state article. I suggest you engage with the dialogue on the talk page and refrain from re-adding it unless there's a consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Seriously dude?

I haven't broken 3RR (nor do I intend to). So I struggle to see this report as anything but done with mal-intent.

WP:ONUS, which you've quoted here, clearly states "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" which means you as you included the content that's been disputed. You didn't seek to achieve this but just re-inserted the disputed content. I removed the edit-warring template from my talk page (as I am perfectly allowed to do) because you'd spammed it at the same time as re-inserting disputed content and opening an article talk page discussion so could've simply tagged me.

Furthermore, upon user's third reversible, instead of engaging in the article's talk page with me, user was preoccupied making an edit change to another article I had recently edited by altering my wording which is in direct relation to the aforementioned article

The edit to the Jimmy Cherizier article (which is clearly backed by policy) is clearly dated 23:08 UTC (which, you thanked me for btw), which not only happened 12 minutes before you actually bothered to finally try to establish consensus for your disputed edits on the Haiti article[27] but 22 minutes before the "third revert". So unless you're suggesting I've engaged in time travel I don't get what your line of argument here is.

Also, as can be easily seen on the Haiti talk page I did engage with you an hour before this frankly bad-faith and malicious 3RR report. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: For the record, this report is for the engagement in edit-warring even though user did not actually break 3RR which is not a necessary condition for this type of engagement. Any concerning issues were best resolved on the talk page prior to reversals, removals and other accompanying edits in relation to the subject. Will such engagement be the recourse moving forward regarding cited material a user may not agree with before a discussion takes place while ignoring warnings to cease in edit-warring? Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Savvyjack23: the bottom line is that there was a disagreement, and both yourself and Rambling Rambler reverted several times back to your favoured version. So a WP:TROUT is due to both of you for that. I'm WP:INVOLVED now, having participated in the talk page discusssion, but I don't see that an admin could declare one of you disruptive but not the other. In any case, the edit war has now abated, so no action seems necessary. It also seems clear that consensus from the discussion so far at Talk:Haiti is against including the disputed material.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru what I don't get is why they made this report despite admitting I didn't break the rules this noticeboard is for enforcing, and chose to make it a substantial amount of time after myself and another editor had made it clear on the talk page their additions weren't appropriate. The fact they're quoting policy but acting in the exact opposite manner to what it plainly says (i.e. arguing WP:ONUS is consensus for exclusion when it's consensus for inclusion) and that they made sure to appear to jump through the right hoops to make this report (while bringing up irrelevant issues on another article) just makes me think this is a "Hail Mary" attempt to game the system and hope I get hit with a block by an admin that doesn't look too much into the report. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

User:202.55.83.233 & User:Cankin3 reported by User:Nkon21 (Result: protected)

Page: Changi Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 202.55.83.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cankin3 (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. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]
6. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36][37]

Comments:
Likely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet claiming to be an airport employee, who persists that the logo of the airport management group should be used, rather than the previous logo that was perfectly fine. After giving them why it was not an improvement, they continued to edit war while ignoring the points I brought up. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Justdoinsomeedtits reported by User:ThaddeusSholto (Result:Already Blocked )

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

---

Page: Me! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214584975 by ThaddeusSholto (talk) This has been moved to the talk page. If you have an issue with the "mostly negative" descriptor on a page with mostly negative reviews, I implore you to take the discussion there rather than continue to vandalize and engage in edit wars."
2. 21:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214583093 by ThaddeusSholto (talk) Refrain from vandalizing this page, please. If you'd like to provide examples of actually positive reviews, you're more than welcome; otherwise, use the talk page for discussion rather than engaging in an edit war"
3. 21:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214560780 by Jessintime (talk) Because the vast majority of the reviews quoted on the page, even the ones in the section for positive ones, are clearly negative. I don't really have an opinion on the song, it's OK if you like it, but please stop vandalizing the page to reflect that"
4. 18:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214533274 by Jessintime (talk) I don't have a "narrative"; since you used that term, you clearly do, though. Do you know what the words in those reviews mean?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Me!."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "/* "Mixed reviews" */"

Comments:

Edit warring and blanking content in spite of other editors disagreeing with their edits. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

^^ "ThaddeusSholto" is the user actually guilty of editing warring and vandalism, to an extent that he deserves some sort of reprimand - loss of privileges, a temporary ban or worse. Incredibly disruptive behavior. The justifications I have provided for my edits on both the revision history page and Talk page of the article in question, and his lack of any of the aforementioned, make that plainly clear. Disruption for disruption's sake. Justdoinsomeedtits — Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Justdoinsomeedtits for this edit combined with the obvious 3RR vio, and the long history of disruptive editing and NPA blocks that indicates they are WP:NOTHERE. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:48, 19 March 2024 (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:Nyxaros reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: )

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214559121 by 2601:282:8100:790:583F:BDA8:3925:7C24 (talk)"
2. 17:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Rv disruptive; discuss on the talk page"
3. 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1214434364 by Nyxaros (talk): Vandal, unexplained removal of sourced content"
4. 23:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Critical response */ rv"
5. 00:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1214224105 by TropicAces (talk): Blocked IP returned again..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reported on my talk page by IP, blocked some time ago for edit warring so knows the “rules”. I protected the page. But off to bed now! Doug Weller talk 21:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: One of these is not a revert, and the other one is after 24h has passed. So I'm at three now. If you are gonna block me for reverting the IP socks and obvious vandalism, do so. ภץאคгöร 21:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Melvin Hudson reported by User:CanonNi (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 09:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) to 09:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
   1. 09:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "/* My edit to Kindattu */ ridiculous"
   2. 09:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "/* March 2024 */ revert offensive shite"
2. 09:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "/* March 2024 */ no"
3. 08:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "/* My edit to Kindattu */ take your bigotry elsewhere"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Melvin Hudson."
2. 08:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:JanaBora."
3. 09:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:2002Sydney2020."
4. 09:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."
2. 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "/* March 2024 */ expand comment"

Comments:

Multiple attacks targeted personally at other editors. Warned multiple times and commented. Sorry if I submitted this through the wrong report type. CanonNi (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked - it doesn't look like Melvin is here to build an encyclopedia so I have blocked them indefinitely.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:88.230.170.214 reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: )

Page: TAI TF Kaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 88.230.170.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "User edit warring and trying to push point of view without consensus and change is not an improvement. Reverted"
2. 11:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Your stated explanation "changed developing to developed" While your actual intention was to make it look like it was a project of both TAI and BAE systems which isn't the case. And your "source" doesn't trump previous sources. Your change is not an improvement in any way. Please do not edit war and get a consensus."
3. 10:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214501514 by Shadow4dark (talk) It's not a "project of both" as text implies but rather BAE is a sub-contructor. Get a consensus on talk page before making such edit."
4. 09:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214437757 by FoxtAl (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on TAI TF Kaan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Note This appears to be part of a wider Turkish nationalist edit warring campaign which is also taking place on Fifth-generation fighter — Czello ^(music) 12:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:51.6.6.157 reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: )

Page: Alfred Charles Gardner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 51.6.6.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "Rectified for fair English representation for someone born and raised here and for common sense and consistency with other wiki artllces of English engineers (which are the majority!) If Thomas Telford can be called Scottish (whos name origin isn't even Scottish) then we can you loser!"
2. [38]
3. [39]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User is a single purpose account looking to make sure people they considers English are labeled as such, not using a source to backup their changes. Has edit warred at multiple pages and is generally belligerent (e.g. "Rectified for fair English representation for someone born and raised here and for common sense and consistency with other wiki artllces of English engineers (which are the majority!) If Thomas Telford can be called Scottish (whos name origin isn't even Scottish) then we can you loser!") Cerebral726 --(talk) 12:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)