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:Peter L Griffin reported by User:Sawerchessread (Result: Stale, but increased protection to EC)

Page: Death of Nex Benedict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peter L Griffin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] - On April 1, 21:32, changes Libs of TikTok ("accused of" phrasing). Change was reverted in [3], which Peter reverts again
2. [4] - On April 1, 06:05, reverts a removal of the phrase "altercation". This was a lead section debate around whether inserting "pouring water" was necessary in the lead. I remove "pouring water" and change to "during altercation", and an uninvolved editor removes "during altercation". Peter reverts this change.
3. [5] - On April 1, 06:07, reverts a removed wikilink within a quote.
4. [6] - On March 31, 05:17, Ongoing discussion and reverts of "Pouring water" phrase in lead
5. [7] - On March 31, 05:18 removes verification failed tag to contentious sentence around notes about self-harm. Tag was added here[8] in response to Peter's edits (here)[9] See also talks about failed verification in lead here Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#the_lead,_NPOV,_and_BDP , apparently this sentence was part of the previous edit war three days ago.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Previously has done edit warring and was warned by admins: [[10]]

Continued edit warring after Page Protection was removed. Edit warring accusations have been flying since.

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

Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#the_lead,_NPOV,_and_BDP Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Pour_water Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#"caused_by_a_drug_overdose"

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

Comments:

Additional dispute is on here, for the admin who was resolving this issue the last time:User_talk:Red-tailed_hawk#Admin-shopping User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Previous edit war documentation from 4 days ago or so is here[12]

Note the result of the previous edit war was Wikipedia:1RR. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not want this to come to this point again. Since the last dispute, I have been careful to not edit war, which is evidenced by each bullet point being one revert; not multiple.

Proof I did not violate 1RR

I will address Sawerchessread's bullet point's one by one:

1. The first linked edit is not a revert, but a normal edit adding contextual information -- "To revert is to undo the action of another editor." The second link is to a revert. Since there is only one revert, 1RR is not violated.

2. There is only one revert, and no violation of 1RR. In fact, I am restoring the page to Sawerchessread's preferred wording, despite my own objections.

3. This is a MOS edit. Whether or not it is considered a revert -- which is highly debatable -- it is only one edit, and does not violate 1RR.

4. One revert. No violation of 1RR.

5. Sawerchessread mischaracterizes the edit. Another user, on the talk page, had disputed my edit from last week where I stated in wikivoice that Nex Benedict left notes suggestive of self-harm. That user noted that all sources quoted the medical examiner, and did not make this claim in their own voice, and the wording then was not sourced. So, I qualified the claim as the opinion of the medical examiner, and removed the failed verification tag. This is clearly not a revert at all.

In fact, to be proactive so that nobody could misconceive me as edit warring, I self-reverted my own edit here [13] about the phrase "drug overdose" so that the matter could be discussed further on the talk page.

Proof Sawerchessread did violate 1RR

Sawerchessread, on the otherhand, has violated 1RR.

• In this edit, after the full protection was removed, they replacing the "pouring water" phrase with "during an altercation" [14], without consensus. I revert this because of the lack of consensus and warn Sawerchessread [15] that any further revert will violate 1RR and could subject them to a block. Nonetheless, Sawerchessread reverts my revert anyway [16]. This second revert flagrantly violates 1RR.
• Sawerchessread has also, interestingly, engaged in the same behavior that I have engaged in -- namely single reverts, nearly always to my edits [17] [18]. As single reverts are not violative of 1RR, those reverts are not rule-breaking per se. Yet it is interesting that since Sawerchessread apparently believes single reverts constitute edit warring, they must also believe a different standard applies to them.

Peter L Griffin (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I have similar concerns to those in the report about the editwarring of Peter L Griffin, and agree that there is a violation of the bright line of WP:1RR. I hadn't gone through quite so comprehensively as Sawerchessread, but left a note on the talk page of Red-tailed hawk, who handled the previous case. Griffin appears to believe that "contentious" means anything that he does not agree with. I am concerned about the appearance of WP:STONEWALLing and WP:Civil POV pushing, with a heaping side of Wikilawyering. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a note on Valereee's usertalk to request help after posting the first ANEW report; I then followed up about concerns related to PLG's post-ANEW conduct. Since then, my concerns continue about ongoing risks of disruption, including what appears to be bludgeoning various discussions, as well as apparent original research and potential attempts to assign undue importance to a single aspect of a subject [19], apparent original research and potential attempts to right great wrongs [20], [21], [22], [23]. Beccaynr (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Other users are expressing support for these discussions as well. I, and those users, believe that your edits are undue. You aren't privileged over other users in making edits which are contentious. Peter L Griffin (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It appears I have not edited the article since 03:34, 28 March 2024 [24], to add a failed verification tag; this was further discussed in this talk section, e.g. [25], [26]. Beccaynr (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Also potentially relevant is PLG's conduct at Talk:Conspiracy theory#A part does not equal the whole and Talk:Conspiracy theory#Plausible conspiracy theories, including concerns expressed by participants, e.g. [27], [28] [29]; and this comment [30] in discussion about another topic; and this recent addition to a BLP [31]. Beccaynr (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You finding evidence of people disagreeing with me does not mean I don't have the right to make my case. I disagree with you, yet I don't dispute your right to hold the view you do. Peter L Griffin (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I added links to discussions, including further examples of potential bludgeoning, along with what appear to be similar concerns about conduct expressed by participants; as well as a comment made about Wikipedians, and what appears to be the addition of contentious material sourced to e.g. the WP:NYPOST in a BLP. In my request for help at Valeree's usertalk, I included some diffs of conduct towards myself and others; overall, I am concerned about what appears to be bludgeoning discussion and editing processes, which seems to impair collaboration on article development. The rapid and repetitive rate and high volume of participation by PLG creates a challenge for presenting a concise overview of various concerns related to potential disruptive editing. However; warnings and guidance have been provided, and from my view, there appears to be an ongoing risk of disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC) - expand comment to clarify Beccaynr (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Put simply, disagreeing with you, or anyone else, is not a policy violation. Your insinuation that it is runs contrary to Wikipedia being a collaborative platform. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You are very dogmatically wikilawyering everything and citing random essays/policies which are only tangentially related to the mater at hand. You were found to be edit warring as well, so I don't understand why you're singling me out like I'm the problem here. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

From my view, this is a conduct issue. You have made some broad statements here, such as "Other users are expressing support for these discussions as well. I, and those users, believe that your edits are undue," but this is not a content dispute. For example, in the RM, some support for the proposed move does not excuse what appears to be your bludgeoning conduct; another example is during discussion about how to develop content related to the medical examiner's report, differences of opinion between editors does not excuse your conduct when it appears disruptive to the consensus-building process.

Since the time another editor was p-blocked from the article and article talk for what appear to be somewhat similar behaviors (complaints at ANI included edit-warring, bludgeoning, adding 'the facts don't care about your feelings' to the article talk page, an extreme focus on 'pouring water'), I think there had been constructive article development and discussion on the article talk page; but then your rapid, repetitive, and high-volume participation began. At 19:40, 26 March 2024, you asked me, "Why do feel as though you dictate where the discussion takes place?" and I offered a link to the talk page guidelines [32] to follow up on my comments about the already-open discussion [33], [34]; your response seemed to personally attack me, which you later seemed to continue after a warning.

As noted in my comment above, you have been warned about your conduct, e.g. [35], [36], [37], and guidance has been offered, e.g. [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]; but you do not seem to WP:LISTEN, e.g. because you appear to be continuing to bludgeon discussions, edit-war, attempting to use original research, and recently began a repetition of discussion about your focus on 'pouring water', contrary to the talk page guidelines e.g. [45], [46], [47]. From my view, the scale and impact of your ongoing conduct seems disruptive to building the encyclopedia, and particularly the Death of Nex Benedict article, including on the article talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this might be getting out of scope for 3RRN. Indeed, the edit warring from PLG at the page in question seems to have stopped. (To be clear, I think there was a violation of 1RR, but it is now stale, and I understand that blocks issued here are to prevent further edit-warring.) I share some of your other concerns, and it looks like something to potentially raise at WP:ANI if the pattern persists. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

yeah this dispute now spans multiple admin talkspaces, mine and plgs and other talkspaces, a dispute resolution ticket and two edit war tickets… but also the wikiwar has gone cold for now.

given its been only two days since the last reverts on this ticket, not sure if its a temporary truce or a permanent ceasefire though in this dispute User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

agree that if the die down in activity stays then ticket should be considered stale User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. As seen above in my first reply, User:Sawerchessread has edit warred and violated 1RR. This should be dealt with appropriately. Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that you hold myself and yourself to a different standard, and act as if your edits are privileged over mine. Since the full page protection, User:Sawerchessread seems to have taken on a role similar to yours previously.

Both of you seem all too happy to direct me discuss on the talk page (and you reply to everything I say, which in your case, you don't count as bludgeoning). But you, in the meantime, insist that the page gets to look the way you prefer with the discussion pending, even when my preferred version is what the original full protected page displayed (ie. pouring water). It's unclear why you think the page should show your preferred version by default (achieved through violations of 1RR) while we discuss. Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Declined The edit-warring claim has, as noted above, gone stale and no one seems to be interested in pursuing it anymore. But it looks to me like it was valid ... Per WP:1RR and its reference to 3RR, it does not matter whether your reverts are of different editors. Otherwise, people would be able to get away with the sort of gaming Peter did in the discussion above.

Because of this I have raised the page to extended-confirmed protection for the current duration, which will have the effect of preventing Peter from editing the article for however long it takes him to make it to 500 edits (which shouldn't be long, although I would advise Peter not to do something like make the appropriate number of rapid minor edits to random articles, because the filter can catch that, and that will result in more direct sanctions), although he is free to edit the talk page all he wants in the interim.

And really this is in general probably a good idea for this article at this point. So, I will be logging this at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Well ... didn't take long for Peter to reach EC. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

TBF, PLG's not wrong when he pointed out that texas no longer has associate judges, so he has been technically correcting wikipedia and making it better. And there hasnt been any edit-warring on the Nex Benedict article in the hours since PLG's gotten EC.

PLG has pointed out on the talk page that the other party to the editwar has been editting the article extensively during the period while PLG was unable to revert. Not strictly reverts on Becannyr's part, but might not have been the most gracious action either. No reverts tho by PLG.

Maybe we (PLG, Becannyr, me, etc.) should all use this dispute resolution ticket I opened up a bit beforehand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Death_of_Nex_Benedict User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I was not involved in the 1RR violation reported here. And there appear to be multiple editors participating in discussions on the article talk page, so the scope and scale of the proposed dispute resolution process seems unclear to me. Also, in my recent edits, I attempted to address what from my view appear to be some MOS and sourcing issues, and expanded some content with reliable sources. As I said on the article talk page, I appreciated Sawerchessread's feedback [48]. As noted here, ongoing conduct issues can be address in appropriate conduct forums. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The other party is YOU! See here: [49][50]. I do appreciate that the edit war seems to have died down. Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Cossde reported by User:Oz346 (Result: No violation)

Pages: List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cossde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User publicly refuses to engage on both talk pages, and continues to revert after declaring this, contrary to Wikipedia consensus building policies:

[60]

[61]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [62]

Comments:

Although the reverts are not all within 24 hours, they are spread out in such a way to "game the system". I request user @Bbb23: to please look into this, as he has previously dealt with this particular editor in the context of edit warring outside of the 3RR rule. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This has been an on going WP:NAT editwaring that has been going on for sometime as indicated here in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. My refusal to engaged in disscussion with user Petextrodon since he/she has repeatedly enaged in personal attacks against me in DRNs Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_243#1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom and [63]. However I have engaged in disscussion with Oz346 [64]. Cossde (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Your last edits on both talk pages was a declaration to not further engage. And then you again reverted despite there being opposition by three separate editors. Oz346 (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, well two editors who have been only contributing to content on the Sri Lankan Civil War, a new editor who has made some edits on Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankan Tamil topics without engagement in the talk page, and a Tamil Nadu IP revert does sound a lot like WP:NAT. Cossde (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cossde, Please show where I engaged in personal attacks in those two talk discussions in question without bringing up old unrelated discussions elsewhere. To continue to falsely accuse me of personal attacks is in itself a personal attack. ---- Petextrodon (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, you have repeatedly insulted me stating "Cossde seems to have difficulties telling the difference" a DRN [65] (which was one of the main reasons the DRN failed [66]), insinuated that I have "comprehension difficulties" in a talk page [67] and openly threatened me in another DRN [68]. Hence I feel I cannot engage in a WP:CIVIL discussion with you. Cossde (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. This is also getting a little stale right now, although I would agree there are issues here. But they are beyond the scope of this noticeboard to resolve. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Trailblazer101 reported by User:MiztuhX (Result: No violation; MiztuhX warned)

Page: Superman (1978 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trailblazer101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]
5. [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Wait, we're seriously getting our tails in knots over trying to add an inflation cost of the budget in 2023 dollars to this article? Acts like bully.

We are citing the web version for this instance

No, I understand perfectly.

All this WP:BLUDGEONING isn't going to prove that an inflated budget is relevant and further affirms my belief it shouldn't be included.

I've seen it before where users in disagreement with the community tend to make long messages and multiple discussions to further infuse their point without reason or compromise, and if I've learned anything from those situations, it is that more often than not, these users cannot be reasoned or negotiated with, and that, for the good of the article, it would be within the best interest not to entertain these distractions much longer.

I will note that, as sourced in the infobox of the article, the budget is listed as $55 million by Box Office Mojo, which is a reliable source. I have included that source in with the budget claim and adjusted the wording. Acting unilaterally without any discussion on user board or article page, violating WP:3RR

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superman_(1978_film)#Revert_#1_&_#2%7C I am entitled to make a WP:BOLD edit, nothing prohibits that] Justifies WP:3RR by using WP:BOLD

I warned the user about violating [WP:3RR] on 3 April 2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superman_(1978_film)#Disputed_%E2%3_Dis} and today 5 April 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trailblazer101#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trailblazer101#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

[74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trailblazer101#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

[75]

[76]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [77]

Comments:

Blazer101 was aggressive and accusatory towards me from the very first time he posted a message on the Superman (1978 film) article page. He labeled me as someone who could "not be reasoned or negotiated with." He accused me of WP:BLUDGEON and did not show good faith towards me or civility on our first contact. He claimed I was being "disruptive" and "uncooperative" when I am none of those things. He accused me of some very serious charges, like "targeting" another editor, when I was only having a difference of ideas and an exchange of opinions with this other editor, trying to gain a consensus. He unilaterally made judgments over topic we were discussing, as if his was the last and final word in the matter, and I did not know who this person as it was the first contact he made with me. I felt threatened by his verbal assault that I sought the advice of aother administrator on-line on how to deal with such raw, displaced anger directed towards me which made me fearful of being on Wikipedia and running into this person. Then, he publicly addressed me and berated me without any scruples or conscience, saying that I was "disruptive," "signaling out" editors, to drop the stick and move on. He went so far as to say that "I have now issued you a formal warning on your talk for your behavior and attitudes..." I had the distinct feeling that he was deliberatly trying to hurt me and to intimidate me. Is this how fellow editors treat each other? Where is the civility? Good faith? I responded calmly to his rant, reminding him to have good faith, and summarized the ways I had tried to reason and compromise. I even said, "If I am wrong, show me how you have tried to compromise." I warned Blazer101 that he had reverted my dispute-inline edit twice, knowing that there was a discussion regarding this very issue on the article talk page. Instead of dealing with the issue at hand on the article page, he chose to be disruptive and edit war. I told him this was a violation of WP:3RR. I ended by asking him to take a step back, take a breather, and move away from his entrenched position. And that I was not the enemy. I also want to note that Blazer101 has made edits unilaterally without discussing them on the article talk page even though I have asked him to discuss it first. He uses the BRD process to justify his edit war, knowing full well that there are discussions regarding these very issues on the article talk page, for example, whether to use a disputed-inline tag, the veracity of budget numbers, and whether 3RR is justified, etc. He acts unilaterally when making edits and reverts and also tries to gaslight me by making outrageous claims like saying the consensus was against me in his edit summary, when no such topic was discussed. I kept trying to appeal to his reason, ask questions, remind him of WP:EQ, WP:AGF, WP:POINT; and to not edit war. His reply was to insist that he was being WP:BOLD and kept defending Betty Long, who has never validated or commented on Blazer101's behvaior. I told him I never targeted Betty Long and suggested he was acting unilaterally in making edits/reverts and I brought up WP:POINT, that he was not interested in improving the Superman article; instead, he added a Box Office Mojo citation to further strengthen a line from being questioned on issues of veriability, bascially to edit war under the guise of improving a line that already had two citations, and despite knowing that the very line was being disputed in the article talk page. I implored with him to: Please... review the above WP links I shared with you above. Take a break. Rest easy. I won't revert your revert, or escalate this anymore. And thankfully he finally came back with a calm, measured response, and I was very happy. I thought I had gotten through to him and things would run smoothly from this point on. I continued my negotiation with Betty Lang and things appeared to run smoothly until Blazer101 made another appearance on 5 April 2024 and began his edit war again, reverting unilaterally, and without notice on any talk page an edit I had made a couple of weeks ago under the justification that it was an "inflated figure," whatever that means. Luckily, there was another editor, GoneIn60, who was mediating between Betty and I and he recommended to Blazer101 " always advise other editors that it's best to leave one as opposed to outright removal. It's also helpful to drop a note on the article talk page as well. This gives editors that frequent the article time to fix if you aren't able (or willing) to locate the proper sourcing. It also has the added bonus that someone else passing by that just happened to stumble across the article may be able to fix it as well." Which is what I have been trying to tell Blazer101 for a week now. In conclusion, all I can say is that Blazer101 has engaged in WP:3R and has been abusive as well as disruptive. He calmed down one day but came back looking for ways to cause trouble and reverted my edits knowing that I was being collaborative with the other editor, making progress with the editor/mediator and spoiled any progress we were making. For that I feel he should be sanctioned or banned so that we might continue making progress in our collaborative efforts. MiztuhX (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: This is the second time this user has reported an editor from the Superman (1978 film) article for alleged edit warring just because they don't agree with the current consensus not being in their favor. The prior report was for another editor here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  This editor has been constantly disruptive and threatening. He knew that Betty Lang were working out our differences and instead of being a collaborative influence, instead chose to be antagonizing towards me. He reverted edits 4 times without posting on an editor's message board or on the article discussion page. He has never had anything supportive or collaborative to say and does not act in good faith. Read his comments. Most of them come off as a bully, as if he thinks he can bully people to do what he wants instead of showing civility and good manner and treating other editors with good faith. MiztuhX (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Trailblazer made two reverts in the article, one on April 3, and the other in two consecutive edits made on April 3 and 5. They have not come even close to violating 3RR. MiztuhX, this report is a very messy, hard-to-follow rant. You are warned on two fronts: first, if you persist in filing meritless reports, you risk being blocked for abuse of process; and, second, your comments about others are personal attacks for which you may also be blocked if you continue. I almost pblocked you now from editing the article and the Talk page because of your behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked MiztuhX for 48h for personal attacks based on their comment above mine, which, amazingly enough, came right after my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

User:2605:8D80:1390:A106:543:46B:94D6:54A3 reported by User:Neuropol (Result: No violation)

Page: Zhuge Liang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2605:8D80:1390:A106:543:46B:94D6:54A3 (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 15:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC) to 15:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
   1. 15:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC) "#article-section-source-editor"
   2. 15:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC) "#article-section-source-editor"
2. 15:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC) "added information #article-section-source-editor"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Zhuge Liang."
2. 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Zhuge Liang."
3. 15:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Zhuge Liang."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

clear vandalism + 3RR Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 15:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Yet another report mistakenly counting the edit reverted to as a revert. I have, however, reverted them again for you. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Fantastic Mr. Fox reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Rasa Sayang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC) "You aren't listening. WP:ICANTHEARYOU applies here."
2. 08:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC) "WP: VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH"
3. 08:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Rhemaiza (talk): After 8 reverts, you give an answer. You need a source to back it up, per WP:RS"
4. 08:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1217519488 by Rhemaiza (talk)"
5. 08:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Rhemaiza (talk) to last revision by Fantastic Mr. Fox"
6. 08:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Rhemaiza (talk) to last revision by Fantastic Mr. Fox"
7. 08:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1217518853 by Rhemaiza (talk)"
8. 08:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC) "You're now at 3RR, I advise you post on the talk page before you are reported to WP:AIV"
9. 08:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 114.79.55.34 (talk) to last revision by Fantastic Mr. Fox"
10. 08:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 4 edits by 114.79.55.34 (talk): Use talk page, you are adding unsourced info."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

See comments.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Fantasic Mr. Fox hasn't been warned, but with this edit summary "You're now at 3RR, I advise you post on the talk page before you are reported to WP:AIV"[78] clearly shows that they are aware of the 3RR rule and the disruptive nature of edit warring.

The other party involved has received a proper edit warning only after this "Amazing Disgrace" of an edit war (article is about a folk song), but at least a "vandalism" warning which is of course technically not correct but should have created an inch of restraint, however with no result. Austronesier (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I stated In my first edit that the user had made a WP:BOLD change that I initially thought was worse (They had a source for a portion of it). The IP triggered the 'bad faith/problem' edit filter in recent edits, which is where I checked it and noticed the user removing sourcing, and making drastic changes. Then, in response my reversion, the user reverted me, without any explanation (Not stating anything till there 8th edit summary, let alone about the mistake regarding my unnoticement of 1 Source), which leads me to believe they don't want to talk through there (WP:BOLD) edits on talk page, which made me feel they placed false information down intentionally -since they just kept reverting me, and using a separate account as well to join in. Someone else also reverted him, so he lacked consensus. Overall, if @Austronesier considers constantly reverting someone refusing to discuss, as well as being confronted by 2 users for being potentially false, is 'edit warring' (I think there is a clause in there for unsourced info against consensus), then I must ask how on earth do you expect me to deal with content being added that is clearly against a local consensus, other than to use up other time in something like an ANI case or a RFC? I could have stopped at 3 reverts, but there was no way the user (Who used 2 accounts, by the way) in question typing the content down was ever considering giving a thorough explanation for removing sourcing and changing the entire lyrics of a song on a Wikipedia page? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Upon checking your revision, you seem to have missed I asked him to discuss on the my first edit, again. WP:STABLEVERSION applies here, I asked him/her in the edit note to explain on the talk page, despite not taking the initiative of starting the discussion for him. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fantastic Mr. Fox: You have cited the 3RR-rule but should also be aware about its full content. The only exemptions to the rule are cases of plain vandalism and block-evading sock edits. The additions of the other party were obviously problematic, but not to the extent to go beyond 3RR. WP is a collective project and no one is entitled to stop other editors by all means (including highly disruptive means) just on the base of feeling to be right. We have channels to handle abuse and disruptive editing that is not vandalism, including this noticeboard.

I don't think you should be blocked for this edit-warring event and for failing to understand even now that it always takes two to edit-war, but should least be sternly warned not to repeat this again. –Austronesier (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

And I won't. But it became obvious from the users 2nd revision that they were attempting to fly under the radar, and I took reverting after that to be WP:3RRNOT since the user was clearly diehard about inserting his changes, which were very bold (and also formatted incorrectly) into the article without an inc of competence in regards to communication. The IP created an account with the sole purpose of edit warring, still refusing any verbal response, convinced me this user had bad intentions at heart here. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Jauerback has blocked Rhemaiza and the IP for 24 hours each; they have also extended-protected the article. Given that FMF has blatantly violated 3RR, I am puzzled why Jauerback has not also blocked them - or at least formally warned them.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23, Both users were SPA's (and WP:DUCKs of one another) that have so far refused to discuss at all, created seemingly to fly under the radar on a low level article, as well. I believed 3RRNOT applied here.

  Comment: On a different note, Bbb23, this is I believe the 7/8th time you have engaged with me. I haven't gone as far as a WP:HOUNDING case yet, but your edits towards me have, in my opinion (and broadly speaking) all accusatory, confusing, non constructive or calling me an SPA (strangely, something you didn't call the editors who were blocked here). This case is about me, and I'm open to questions or criticism, but there is a line between criticising a user and harassing a user. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  I was only made aware of the issues at WP:AIV. I admittedly didn't look that close at other potential offenders. Feel free to block them yourself. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I vacillated between a warning and a block, but their insistence that their edit-warring was exempt under 3RRNO tipped the scales in favor of a (light) block. Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Sweety943 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Economy of West Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sweety943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sweety943 is an editor who obsessively changes numbers in economics articles, but rarely bothers to provide a source for his/her edits. He/she has been warned about this repeatedly - see User talk:Sweety943.

Previous version reverted to: set of 10 edits by Sweety943 between 15:14, 26 March 2024‎ (UTC) and 09:16, 31 March 2024‎ (UTC) These edits changed many numbers, including changing the GDP per capita from ₹141373 to ₹182373.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reverted GDP per capita from ₹141373 to ₹182373
2. 08:25-08:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reverted GDP per capita from ₹141373 to ₹182373.
   This was followed by 08:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) which changed the GDP per capita from ₹182373 to ₹190302.
3. 09:31-36, 6 April 2024 (UTC) changed various figures, including changing the GDP per capita from ₹141373 to ₹211373.
4. 14:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reverted GDP per capita from ₹141373 to ₹211373

Sweety943 sometimes changed the GDP per capita number three times to ₹182373, once to ₹190302, and then twice to ₹211373. It was therefore reasonable for @Shubhrojeet: to believe that Sweety943's edits were obvious vandalism (and therefore exempt from the edit-warring policy).

Diff final warning for deliberately introducing incorrect information: 08:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Economy of West Bengal#6 April 2024 edit war

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:342:C003:3F0:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 3 months)

Page: Parker Boudreaux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:342:C003:3F0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]
4. [82]
5. [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [85]

Comments:

IP moving around on the /32 range, but the same user adding the same content after I explained why they shouldn't. — Czello ^(music) 23:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Czello, are you sure you mean /32 rather than /64? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll assume /64 was meant; the /32 list seems to contain no additional contributions to the same page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, that's what I meant. I'm admittedly not great at understanding the difference or what /32 and /64 are! — Czello ^(music) 07:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Czello, no worries – in case it's actually still unclear, the number says how much of the left side you refer to. Each block separated by colons has a size of 16 (bits). You meant all addresses that start with "2601:342:c003:3f0", so you meant four of these blocks. That's 16*4=64.

Almost always, 64 is the highest meaningful number you'll see, as almost every internet connection is allowed to use an entire /64 for themselves. So if you want to calculate a range, you can use the IP range calculator (IPv6) but if your result has a larger number than "64" at the end, replace it by 64. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

User:143.58.205.157 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: )

Page: Hillsborough disaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 143.58.205.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC) "How is it 'not neutral' to say this when it was literally what the inquest found?"
2. 12:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 10:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on South Yorkshire Police."
2. 11:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hillsborough disaster."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked before the same addition. Has also added this. Will not listen and because of my 48 hour block recently I am apparently a hypocrite. Might I suggest a longer block? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting continues. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You are a hypocrite. We both got banned on the last occasion, me for 24 hours and your for 48 hours (I assume it was rightly found that your behaviour was more egregious than mine - since I was the one explaining my reasoning, whereas you were (and still are) the one sticking his fingers in his ears and refusing to provide any reasoning. In those circumstances how dare you say to me - 'You've already been blocked before. Give it a rest, won't you?' You were blocked for longer, so why don't you give it a rest!

Furthermore, why don't you explain yourself on the talking page? I have already posted there providing the BBC source that confirms that I am right. Why don't you respond demonstrating that I am wrong? Oh wait, you can't - because you know perfectly well that you are the one who is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.205.157 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There is WP:STATUSQUO, WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN and more importantly, it is mentioned later on. There is a logical flow to leads. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Alsho093 reported by User:Vnar123 (Result: )

Page: Principality of Abkhazia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: user:Alsho093

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]
4. [90]

A similar revert two days ago:

1. [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [93]

Comments:
The user has been extensively engaged in edit warring by removing sourced information regarding the Georgian language in the infobox of the principality in question.

In the first revert, the user deleted the sourced information in the infobox about the Georgian language. In a similar revert (in which they deleted information about the language from the body of article) claimed that the source was "unrecognized" (what does that even means?) and "deleted by verifiers" (this is not true, no "verifier" has deleted the source and it has never been proven that these sources are unreliable in any way).

The user quickly abandoned using this argument and in the second revert claimed that the information about the language should not be added because it is not contained in the Ottoman archives and "Circassian conference". Well, there is other source proving the information, the user failed to challenge it in any way, just because this archive and conference don't state the information does not means the other source provided is unreliable. There are many sources proving the information even if it is not contained in the Ottoman archive or Circassian conference, but the user disregarded this and provided no argument disproving the source in any way. The user also failed to provide where did the "verifiers" assess the added sources as unreliable (because this never happened).

In another revert user just claimed to protect the page from "vandalism".

In forth revert, they claimed that the information should not be added because it is not a source from the time this historical principality existed (secondary sources are allowed on Wikipedia, but user deleted the source for this reason.

The user was asked not to engage in edit war and prove their point with arguments, but they failed to provide any substantial argument, and deleted the message about edit warring on their Talk page, after which they continued to engage in edit war. The attempts to settle the situation through discussion failed as user just deleted the my message from their Talk page. - Vnar123 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)