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:92.10.136.207 reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.10.136.207 (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

Comments:

• Result: The IP editor was blocked 72 hours by User:Ohnoitsjamie. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Gabrielasirwatham‎ reported by User:Metta79 (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]
5. [11]
6. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

Comments:

The editor has also been filed for a sock puppet report here:

[16]

However, the edit warring seems to be continuing unabated, hence why I have also reported the user here. The user did 4 reverts on the 17 April 2024, and potentially much more if the sock puppet report comes back positive. Metta79 (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected – I've closed the sock case as  Unrelated but have put indefinite extended-confirmed protection on the article. (Neither account named in the sock case is extended-confirmed). Arbcom has just designated Sri Lanka as a contentious topic, though the templates for enacting those sanctions aren't set up yet. Let me know if this dispute spreads out to more articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• EdJohnston I've just indeffed Gabrielasirwatham for their response to my warning about casting aspersions on that talk page. I'm pretty sure we haven't lost a productive editor there. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

ObsessedWithStarship II reported by Me Da Wikipedian

Just about all contributions are edit warring/insisting why they are not. Refuses to listen, has been warned, etc. Pinging other users who have been dealing with them @Redacted II, @IlkkaP, and @Andyjsmith Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is a description of all eleven of ObsessedWithStarship II's edits:

Edit 1: Claimed IFT-3 was a failure, despite the (disputed) closing of the RfC, which declared it a success. Reverted by Andyjsmith

Edit 2: Undid closing of previously mentioned RfC. Reverted by Andyjsmith

Edit 3: Claimed IFT-3 propellant transfer results were still pending, despite numerous sources calling the prop-transfer a success. Reverted by me.

Edit 4: Claimed IFT-3 was a partial failure, using misinterpreted source. Reverted by me.

Edit 5: Unreverted Edit 3, citing outdated source. Reverted by Me Da Wikipedian.

Edit 6: Unreverted edit 4, again interpreted source. Reverted by IlkkaP.

Edit 7: Removed statement on Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles describing IFT-3 as a success. Reverted by me.

Edit 8: Removed statement on Starship HLS stating IFT-3 successfully reached the desired orbit. Reverted by me.

Edit 9: Response to my Edit Warring warning, denying wrongdoing while accusing me of edit warring.

Edit 10: Another response, further accusation.

Edit 11: Unreverted edit 5. Reverted by me. Redacted II (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

ObsessedWithStarship II reported by User:Redacted II (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Pages:
SpaceX Starship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Starship HLS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Super heavy-lift launch vehicle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ObsessedWithStarship II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17][18][19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]
6. [25]
7. [26]
8. [27]
9. [28]
10. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31]

Comments:
Every single edit by the reported user has been to push the IFT-3 failure narrative, with the only two exceptions being reponses to my edit-warring warning.Redacted II (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is a description of all eleven of ObsessedWithStarship II's edits:

Edit 1: Claimed IFT-3 was a failure, despite the (disputed) closing of the RfC, which declared it a success. Reverted by Andyjsmith

Edit 2: Undid closing of previously mentioned RfC. Reverted by Andyjsmith

Edit 3: Claimed IFT-3 propellant transfer results were still pending, despite numerous sources calling the prop-transfer a success. Reverted by me.

Edit 4: Claimed IFT-3 was a partial failure, using misinterpreted source. Reverted by me.

Edit 5: Unreverted Edit 3, citing outdated source. Reverted by Me Da Wikipedian.

Edit 6: Unreverted edit 4, again interpreted source. Reverted by IlkkaP.

Edit 7: Removed statement on Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles describing IFT-3 as a success. Reverted by me.

Edit 8: Removed statement on Starship HLS stating IFT-3 successfully reached the desired orbit. Reverted by me.

Edit 9: Response to my Edit Warring warning, denying wrongdoing while accusing me of edit warring.

Edit 10: Another response, further accusation.

Edit 11: Unreverted edit 5. Reverted by me. Redacted II (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Support block as orginal reporter. Thanks for fixing this@Redacted II Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reposting, was declared malformed due to missing a step in filling out template.

  Will repost in a few seconds.

  And @Me Da Wikipedian, thanks! Redacted II (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

A previous report was filed by Me Da Wikipedian, but it was rejected due to not following the template.Redacted II (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Redacted II reported by User:Redraiderengineer (Result: )

Page: SpaceX Starship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redacted II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 20:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Addition of success outcome in infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts: SpaceX Starship

1. 11:17, 16 April 2024‎ (UTC) Revert of height
2. 21:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Revert of outcome to success
3. 11:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Revert of specific impulse
4. 11:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Revert of outcome to success
5. 20:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Revert of outcome to success

SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 3

1. 17:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC) Initial change of status to success
2. 20:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table
3. 21:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table

Super heavy-lift launch vehicle

1. 12:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Revert to partial success in table
2. 14:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table
3. 21:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table
4. 00:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table
5. 12:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table
6. 11:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table
7. 21:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Revert of success in article's body
8. 21:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Revert of success in article's body

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Super heavy-lift launch vehicle: 13:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 12:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments:
Multiple editors have engaged in edit warring across SpaceX Starship-related articles, but Redacted II has performed a large number of reverts with little attempt to engage in discussion or after a discussion was started. While a slow edit war and not a strict violation of 3RR, this editor is violating the spirit of the rule. Redacted II was warned of this type of violation and ownership-asserting behavior by ToBeFree after their last block. After multiple warnings for edit warring, they are well informed of the rules.

This report is for the SpaceX Starship article, but I provided diffs of two additional articles and the mention of the edit war at SpaceX Starship flight tests to provide the additional context that this editor has and continues to engage in edit warring across the SpaceX Starship topic. A temporary topic ban may be warranted. Redraiderengineer (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Starship Revert 1: the editor who made the reverted edit was clearly vandalizing the article, given that they also added "Going to Mars in may 2024 and going to the moon in may 2024 and there will be 200 people on mars in may 2024 and 160 people on the moon in may 2024 and moon base and mars base will happen in may 2024", with the edit descript being "ben".

Starship Revert 2: An editor removed IFT-3 entirely from the infobox, so I readded it.

Starship Revert 3: An IP made a good-faith edit matching RVac ISP in Starship article to that of Raptor, Since the source they used was almost a decade out of date, I did the opposite, and corrected the value in Raptor to the more recent once.

Starship Revert 4: the edit changing outcome to Partial Failure was mentioned here by Fehér Zsigmond-3, so I reverted it.

Starship Revert 5, IFT-3 Reverts 2 and 3, Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Revert 8, : Look at the report directly above this one. The user who made the reverted edit is now indef-banned.

Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Reverts 1-6: the issue was resolved shortly after, and a misconception I had on edit warring was corrected.

Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Reverts 7: reverted to follow status quo, and reminded editor of that rule in edit descript.

The only connection between these reverts is readding sourced content, and reverting vandalism. The 3RR rule, as mentioned by RedRaider, was never violated, and for many of these reverts, there was already a discussion occurring at SpaceX Starship. Additionally, ignoring the edits by the now-banned disruptive editor, and the reverts prior to being corrected by ToBeFree, no second revert occured. Redacted II (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Me Da Wikipedian, @IlkkaP, @Andyjsmith, and @Fehér Zsigmond-03 so that they can give their opinions on this. Redacted II (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Well in my opinion, Redacted II was definitely active, with many of his edits being reverts. And on the outside it does look like an edit war. However, as he said, many of his reverts were of misclassifying of Ift-3, so those are justified. And if people keep on doing something that has to be reverted, he did it. The accusation mainly come from (as far as I can see) from his Bold behaviour. If he saw something, he fixed it. What im trying to say is that he had the best of intentions, but overdid it. So if he tells people about whats happening and doesnt always act immediately, it would be fine.

Thank you for reading my argument defending Redacted II, and I hope this gets resolved soon. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redacted II didn't revert the Mars/Moon vandalism. 103.211.18.23 made that revert. (I'm using their word, but editors should assume good faith and start a discussion.) Other claims of vandalism are not substantiated.
• The rest of the explanations are not exemptions to edit warring. The other editor wasn't indefinitely blocked at the time of Redacted II's reverts, and in some instances, their edits added sources (reliable or unreliable - that could have been discussed instead of edit warring). However, Redacted II called these "unconstructive edit[s]" based on their preferred version. For example, at Starship HLS, Redacted II reverted an edit referring to IFT-3 as "the most successful [test flight] to date" with a March 2024 article from The Washington Post as the reference. Redacted II replaced that sentence in their revert with "successfully reaching orbit for the first time in March 2024." However, Redacted II's source is from January 2024 (before IFT-3 launched in March 2024) and doesn't support the claim.

21:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redacted II reverted Natg 19 twice on the SpaceX Starship talk page. Including the reverts above, this is four reverts within a 24-hour period between SpaceX Starship and its talk page.

17:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

17:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• ToBeFree warned Redacted II on 27 March, 2024, but twelve of the nineteen reverts mentioned in this discussion occurred after that warning.
• Redacted II involvement in this edit war was similar to the other editor that was indefinitely blocked (the other editor didn't appear to violate 3RR and this was their first warning), but unlike the other editor, Redacted II has been warned multiple times. Policies should apply equally.

Redraiderengineer (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The four reverts of ObsessedWithStarship II were combined with reverts by 3 other editors. When that many editors are reverting something, and no-one else is bringing it back, it isn't a stretch to say that their editing is vandalism.

By your own admission, seven of the reverts occurred before the warning, so including them is rather unfair. And given that the reverts of ObsessedWithStarship II fall under Exception 4, I'll ignore those for now.

This leaves these reverts:

Starship 1: Revert of height. No second revert was conducted, so this is clearly not part of any edit war. Other part of reverted edit was reverted by another user.

Starship 2: Revert to status Quo. Second revert was two days later (Starship 4).

Starship 3: Revert of specific impulse, reasons explained in edit descript. No second revert needed, so again, clearly not part of an edit war.

Starship 4: Revert to Status Quo, as source added by IP did not support their statement. No violation of 3RR, no additional revert conducted until ObsessedWithStarship.

Super Heavy Lift1: Revert to Status Quo, explained status quo rule. No second revert (until almost exactly two weeks later, when ObsessedWithStarship removed that statement. No 3RR violation, and since there was a 14 day gap, its a stretch to say Edit Warring occurred.

Going back to ObsessedWithStarship II's edits, before I decided to also warn them for Edit Warring, I explained why their edits were reverted. So, saying I didn't try to discuss the matter is blatantly false.

Additionally, the editor clearly knew that the success of IFT-3 was being discussed. Looking at their FIRST edit: "The consensus is clear on this". Keep in mind that the RfC was (briefly closed) roughly an hour before. And they clearly knew about this, because their second edit was to revert the closure.

The reverts on the talk page were not mine alone. @Andyjsmith also reverted ObsessedWithStarship II, but by this point I had begun trying to discuss the closer with Natg 19, and later Nemov. Note: no 3RR violation, and attempt to discuss issue on a talk page. Redacted II (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I won't judge here; I semi-protected the page for a year now, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

User:MonsterMash51 reported by User:MicrobiologyMarcus (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

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: Impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MonsterMash51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "Adding citation"
2. 23:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219792893 by MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) Restoring article content #diff-undo"
3. 21:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219792893 by MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) Restoring removed content #diff-undo"
4. 20:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219786528 by Esolo5002 (talk) Restoring factual information that continues to be reverted for no reason. Possible Vandalism. #diff-undo"
5. 20:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219785391 by Esolo5002 (talk) Undoing possible vandalism #diff-undo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

So I make an edit and people continuously commit vandalism removing my content for no reason and I'm the one blocked from editing? I can't revert vandalism to improvements to an article? MonsterMash51 (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It isn't the other users that are doing it. Also, you are the one who is engaging in the edit war. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 01:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I made a good faith edit. It was reverted 3 times without explanation. I restored the content I added because it looked like vandalism to directly revert a change I made without comment. People then started to say the language was biased (don't know how that is) and so I added a source and some more info. MonsterMash51 (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

MonsterMash51, the explanations are there on your talk page. Yes, that language is biased: it's your own opinion. Now, if you don't know that Wikipedia isn't for expressing opinions, and if you don't know what counts as vandalism here (those reverts do not count as vandalism: look it up, at WP:VANDAL), then, eh, you haven't learned much in the fourteen years that you've been here, and I'd say you got lucky with only a partial block. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The total reverts to my edit exceed the 3 revert rule. Why is that other users can remove content and their version is allowed to stand and my reverts to restore the content are the ones that are moderated? MonsterMash51 (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I'll take that too. Surely you have learned along the way that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You were reverted by at least two editors, right? That means you are obviously editing against consensus--all the more reason for you to count your blessings with the light block you received. Finally, and I'll say it again, your content broke neutrality rules. That doesn't really matter for the edit warring, but it does indicate why your edit will not make it into article space. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. The votes were 51-49 along party lines. The articles allege dereliction of duty, violating immigration law, perjury, and contempt of Congress. The infobox includes this information. Would it then not be false to say that the articles do not allege crimes or misdemeanors? Including the information about the republicans staying after is not an opinion either, it's just a statement of fact. I don't see how Wikipedia is served by blanket reverting facts and to claim facts are biased. I was not aware of the 3RR before today but it should apply both ways. MonsterMash51 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Um, really? User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 02:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Um, yes? MonsterMash51 (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure those were good faith edits. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 02:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. MonsterMash51 (talk) 03:04, 20 April 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:Ushistorygeek reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Purdue University Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ushistorygeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [39]

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

User: Sathyashraya reported by User:ImperialAficionado (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Battle of Pangal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sathyashraya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [48]

Comments:

Became suddenly active, currently doing disruptive editing at many articles. Potential edit warring at Umayyad campaigns in India too where the user is continuously reverting to a version, which has been reverted by several other editors earlier for its non neutral nature.Imperial^[AFCND] 12:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I almost blocked indefinitely as the user has been disruptive since they created their account on on March 19, 2024.Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  It is similar to another user. I've reported a sockpuppet investigation on this, with evidences. The pattern is again similar. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

User:LadybugStardust reported by User:Grayfell (Result: )

Page: Brendan O'Neill (columnist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "Primary sources are acceptable when they are used to cite the author's POV."
2. 19:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "I will discuss this with you, but you had no right to remove the additional sources that I added to the other sections of the article."
3. 18:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "What is the "flattery"? Describing him as pro-choice? Also, why did you remove all of my sources as well?"
4. 18:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "I didn't use any "heavy-handed promotional language". There's nothing non-neutral about it."
5. 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC) ""
6. 20:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "Changing some wording to appease PC language police. As for The Oxford Student, in what possible way is it not a reliable source?"
7. 20:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219788559 by Buidhe (talk) - No, The Oxford Student is widely accepted as a reliable source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Brendan O'Neill (columnist)."
2. 19:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Brendan O'Neill (columnist)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit warring from LadybugStardust */ new section"

Comments:

Your complaint was regarding supposedly un-WP:NPOV language in the section that I added about O'Neill's views on abortion. However, when you reverted that edit, you also removed all of the additional sources that I had added to other parts of the article - sources which you had no business removing, as they had nothing to do with your complaints over my supposedly "flattering" language in the abortion section. In my last edit, I restored those sources, but removed the section about abortion until we can work something out regarding the language that I used.--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

As I explained on both your talk page, my talk page, and the article's talk page, the article's talk page is the place to discuss this. You do not have consensus for those changes and you should not be edit warring even if you think you are correct. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

And I am discussing it on the article's talk page right now. You still haven't given any reason why you removed my additional sources from the other parts of the article, though.--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that LadybugStardust is now up to 7 reverts (the most recent shortly outside the 24-hour window), this time restoring a self-published source about a third party (Greta Thunberg) that was criticized for his negative comments about her. Woodroar (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Fuzheado reported by User:Cryptic (Result: )

Page: Portal:Current events/2024 April 19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fuzheado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 15:30, 19 April 2024‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:40, 19 April 2024
2. 20:17, 19 April 2024
3. 18:04, 20 April 2024
4. 18:34, 20 April 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As an administrator who's blocked others for edit warring in the past, I'd think he wouldn't need one.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Portal talk:Current events#Dispute over Taylor Swift album in Current events page

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

Comments:
Reverts 3 and 4 are just outside the 24-hour window, so I'm bringing this here for a second opinion. Normally I'd protect, but that's not really an option for recent P:CE subpages. —Cryptic 20:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The question of whether to include the Taylor Swift material is also being discussed in a thread at Portal talk. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Disappointed in this being reported when the editing cycle was stopped and a discussion was initiated at Portal_talk:Current_events#Dispute_over_Taylor_Swift_album_in_Current_events_page. My words:

"instead of undoing each other, can we please discuss this in a civil manner here."

The first editors that were removing content were either IP editors or had a very sparse/odd editing history, and were leaving non-useful two word edit summaries, including ones that gave no valid policy reasons: "not important" or "not notable." I treated them as drive-by vandalism. Only when editors such as Alsoriano97 were actually engaging in dialogue did I consider it start verging into "edit war" territory, which is why we stop editing and start a discussion. No 3RR action is warranted or needed. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The discussion was opened to talk about the inclusion or not of that content. It is disproportionate to open a report. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Kecesi reported by User:Kaalakaa (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Using loutsock
2. 06:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
3. 06:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
4. 07:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Deleted by them.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51] On their talk page, as it concerns their violations of WP:OR and their apparent lack of comprehension of WP:SOURCE.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [52]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

User:TylerBurden reported by User:WeatherWriter (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TylerBurden (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. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [58]

Comments:

• Edit warring on a Contentious Topic page. Attempts to diffuse the situation, which resulted in concerns of a CTOPIC map being unsourced were ignored or disregarded. The map in question has nearly 300 talk page discussion regarding it over the last 2 years (Talk:Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War & Talk:Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 1). User was aware of these talk page discussion and sources from this reversion of the WP:BOLD removal as they were directly linked. User is very much aware it is a contentious topic as they gave me a CTOPIC alert. User was kindly asked to gain a consensus for the removal, but ignored this request and continued to edit war to remove the map. Bringing here before a 3RR violation as the topic is a contentious topic and all attempts at reason have failed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Additional comment: Their third removal of the map in question was just reverted by Czello, an editor not previously involved in this dispute. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  TylerBurden, I have no idea why you believed it might be acceptable to start a one-vs-many edit war by making and repeatedly restoring one of the possibly most controversial changes to the RUSUKR topic area I have seen so far, removing the map of the conflict from the infobox over two years after its introduction to a highly active and visible central article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Warned: Logged Arbitration Enforcement warning ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Paper-Ringer reported by User:Rusty4321 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Vivienne Martin (actress) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Carl Weathers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Paper-Ringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1220073979 by Jkaharper (talk) revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."
2. 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."
3. 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."
4. 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
5. 17:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
6. 17:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
7. 17:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
8. 17:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
9. 17:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
10. 17:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
11. 17:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
12. 17:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
13. 17:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
14. 17:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
15. 17:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
16. 17:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
17. 16:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)