Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 21:33, 6 January 2025

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:إيان reported by User:AndreJustAndre (Result: Withdrawn)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Note: WP:1RR is active on this page.

[2] (removes 1885 which I added)
[3] (removes 1885 and the quote "The man credited with coining the word ‘Zionism’ in 1885, Nathan Birnbaum," which I added)

See [4], [5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Zionism#§_Terminology

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

Comments:

Note attempt to invite user to self-revert 1RR violation. Yes, consensus required is also active on this page, but 1RR is still being violated here. Andre🚐 07:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndreJustAndre but إيان is correct that the addition market no sense... This is not something to drag someone to ANEW over. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So 1RR is waived when the edits don't appeal to someone? I thought 1RR was a bright line rule. Andre🚐 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And in my view the edits make sense and I thought edit warring is wrong, even if you're right? Are you weighing in on the content, or the behavior? Andre🚐 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is so petty AndreJustAndre. WP:POINTY vibes. When they brought this up on my talk page, they noted the tenuous nature of their grievance: While the two edits are slightly different, in both cases you removed the addition of 1885, arguably, two reverts, violating the 1RR sanction on this article, emphasis my own. When they invited me to self-revert, I invited them to seek consensus on the talk page. Instead, they decided to waste everyone's time at ANEW.

I didn't go in and explain my edits because I didn't think it was worth it, but it appears the first time I removed 1885 was accidental as I was trying to manually manage an edit conflict. I thought the only addition was the source. (Pharos pointed out on the talk page that AndreJustAndre's information aobut 1885 information was erroneous; AndreJustAndre then felt it was still necessary to include 1885 and used wording that makes no sense. إيان (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

POINT is when you disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. I invited you politely to revert yourself and reminded you of 1RR. Is 1RR waiveable? Andre🚐 21:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's not at all clear that the 1885 information is erroneous. That's in an active discussion on talk. Andre🚐 21:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if I see correctly, this complaint is mostly about formalities. I can do this too. Where was the reported user formally notified about the contentious topic restrictions in this area? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Guess if he hasn't. This can be closed then. I'll notify him now. [8] [05:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)][reply]

~~He was in 2021: [9] [05:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)]~~ Nvm, that's another area. [05:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)] He was warned in 2021 [10] for unrelated area. I'll withdraw this report since user was never warned of A-I sanctions that I can tell. That is my mistake. I've seen him around this area a lot but apparently, nobody ever warned him. Have now done so. Andre🚐 05:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zyn225 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Warned; indefinitely blocked)

User being reported: Zyn225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Shahada."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Single purpose account, does not grasp WP:ALLAH soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand I should have discussed this but I can't seem to find the discussion page.

I think some people are talking a Wikipedia page personally. Especially the anti Islam users.

A translation for the name chosen by Allah in his holy revelation to humanity sounds illogical to me. Do you use the translation of your name when you travel to a new country?

It's very clear some people are deliberately ignorant because of their personal beliefs. I am surprised this is even allowed from a non Muslim to edit a page about Islam. Clearly you're doing what you like. This is a Wikipedia page where people come to learn. How would they even say the Shahada if you misguide them like this. The Shahada must be said with the True name Allah. Zyn225 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zyn225: The place to discuss your change is at Talk:Shahada. The reasons I'm not blocking you for edit-warring is because you are new and because you were not warned about edit-warring. I must also tell you, though, your idea of how Wikipedia works is wrong. We work by consensus, not by an editor's personal beliefs. Also, we do not restrict editors from voting on articles because of their religion, nationality, ethnicity, or even their "expertise" in the subject matter. You are warned that if you return to edit-warring, you risk being blocked without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 the user was warned about disruptive editing, but not edit warring and 3RR specifically. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New yes but if I knew this is how information is served to normal people I would have stopped coming to this site ages ago. So let's be logical about the Shahada; the Testimony. So basically according to editors and consensus if someone says "There's no God but God" and "Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the servant and messenger of God" -- th

FYI Prophet Muhammad did not even know the word "GOD". This is not the message that the messenger delivered. The Holy revealation; The Holy Quran is very clear about the identity of Allah. If you make a translation of the name you literally misguide everyone including yourself. This needn't debating when you think of it. Basically if a non Muslim from Siberia would come to Shahada page they'd get a word that English speakers non Muslims use. No Muslim uses the word "God" not in the Adhan, not in the prayers. Somethings should be transliterated otherwise it's misinterpretation. Also some translators in hope of selling religion and making people believe have normalized using the word God. Because let's be honest there is some kind of fear in some non Muslims when used the word Allah.

Well what can I say except that everything would be clear when our soul reaches the throat. When we become corpses decomposing to skeletons. Then would we believe. Then would we become mindful of our creator. Grateful for every creation of Allah we enjoy everyday and every breath we take without paying anything. Gratitude that is not within disbelievers. Wikipedia needs better management. This is not acceptable that you let whoever hav upe an opinion about things they don't know. What do you except from disbelivers when you put this to vote? Do you expect them to accept the name Allah? Zyn225 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zyn225 you can either learn to work with disbelievers or you can go elsewhere. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No disbelievers have the right or the knowledge to educate the world about their creator Allah, and about religion. It's mockery when you do that. I am working with disbelievers; the Shahada should be properly translated so they are properly educated. If you say the translation you made of the Shahada you are not a Muslim. Jibrail (as) brought the word "Allah" with the revelations as per the command of Allah. Its not from Arabic speaking people and their tradition as you've stated.

Listen wether you believe or not believe its your choice, wether you accept or not that too your choice but to put the wrong and misinterpreted knowledge to the mass that's a heinous crime. It seems to me all the fuss and debate about this issue because these editors just can't accept the word Allah. Muslim is someone who submits their will to Allah as every other creation have done. Because the will of Allah is what people call the law of physics but its the law and will of Allah. So a non Muslim disbeliever should go elsewhere and not try to edit an Islamic page. Zyn225 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOT HERE EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I don't think my warning worked. Thanks for taking care of it - I was eating lunch. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no God but God" --- is that your translation of the Shahada? Do you realize how illiterate and illogical the translation sounds when you don't use the true name of Allah? Not to mention the above statement is not the Shahada anymore. One of the 3 questions asked in the grave is Who is your Creator/Lord/Ilah/God? The true answer is Allah, I suppose you would not answer them with the very question you would be asked. Majority of humans can not say the truth. Because they did not worship their creator and now we are here trying to debate the Name? Well guess what all these translations would do no help. You would be called a liar. So consider the information people taking from here; it's far from being right and the truth. I do not accept this as a Muslim. How is this even logical that non Muslims are creating and editing topics about Muslims. Like thanks but no thanks. Not like this; misinterpreted to the core. Zyn225 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jabust reported by User:Inexpiable (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267352173 by Inexpiable (talk) reverted vandalism by grudge-bearing stalker"
19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267351775 by Inexpiable (talk)"
17:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266631201 by Thenightaway (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
18:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"
19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
19:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated edit warring on multiple pages with multiple users. User has strange knowledge of Wikipedia policy for an account only 5 days old, I would request a Check User on this individual also. Inexpiable (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad faith report by a user who is seemingly just enraged that I can find guidelines in the manual of style and follow them. They reverted four times at List of people executed in the United States in 2007, where I had removed a redundant restatement of the article's title. Then they evidently decided they would like to bother me more, so reverted an edit I had made several days ago to 2017-2019 Saudi Arabian purge, for no reason whatsoever. I find their behaviour to be extremely unpleasant and very consciously harmful to Wikipedia. Jabust (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabust I've seen your frivolous edits in multiple pages of "List of people executed in the United States (Yearly)" and I blatantly disagree with your edits.

He isn't "enraged", @Inexpiable is actually right about reporting you, you've made multiple frivolous edits on other pages such as List of people executed in the United States in 2024, in every article, you'd see a "talk" page, which you can discuss about what to edit, and you've blatantly ignore his messages and repeatedly purging his message in your profile talk page.

In your message, you've stated that his behavior is "extremely unpleasant", but apparently, you're the one that is purging his messages in your profile talk page as stated above, ignoring his verbal warning, therefore, you are being condescending by doing so.

You're currently blocked by @EvergreenFir for 24 hours, next time before proceeding to edit, please kindly used the "talk" page to discuss before proceeding to make frivolous edits. TheCheapTalker (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabust: I am not the one continuing to revert edits. You found the guidelines on the manual of style only 4 days after creating a brand new account??? That is extremely suspicious. You also refused to even discuss the matter and just reverted all the edits. I undid my edit on the List of people executed in the United States in 2007 in good faith because I am not continuing to edit war unlike yourself. Inexpiable (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2600:4040:2BC1:8C00:ACDB:1219:1BB4:76B7 reported by User:Migfab008 (Result:48 hour block)

User being reported: 2600:4040:2BC1:8C00:ACDB:1219:1BB4:76B7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent vandalism. Remove of content. Migfab008 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP for disruptive editing. PhilKnight (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tejoshkriyo reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "If you believe that my intentions are chauvinism, then you are mistaken, for the previous sentencing implies to misinform the general audience. My intention is to present what is the truth and what goes on a global scale as well as the status of the Eastern nagari -script. Bengalis are not the only ones who call this the "Bengali script", even though officially this should be called the "Eastern Nagari script". Both Bengalis and the layman global public sphere refer this as the "Bengali script"."
Consecutive edits made from 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "The reference indeed mentions "Bengalis will refer to the script of their language exclusively as the 'Bengali script'", because certainly an ethnic group will attribute the script/alphabet they utilise as THEIRS but it still disregards on what goes internationally and how people approach this script in general; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere". The point still stands within the limitation of the reference and takes this terminology on a broader scale."
2. 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Readded the reference but changed the sentencing of the visual page for accuracy."
3. 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "changed page number"
20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "It is apparent that the reference hasn't been utilised correctly. The sentence: "It is commonly referred to as the Bengali script by Bengalis" is simply incorrect, for it emphasizes that ONLY Bengalis are the one who refer this script as the "Bengali script". The reference study attached to this sentence says otherwise; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere", which should tell you that not only Bengalis refer this as the "Bengali script", when non-Bengalis do it too."
14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bengali–Assamese script."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ new section"
21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ Reply"

Comments:

Makes changes to longstanding version to contentious topic, removes source, doesn't abide by WP:BRD, keeps edit warring and even when discussion has started in the talk page. Note similar POV removal dated 10 December 2023 and also the use of minor (m) in some of the edits which are not WP:MINOR. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note this POV arrangement [12]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Æ's old account wasn't working reported by User:Notwally (Result: 1 week block)

User being reported: Æ's old account wasn't working (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

04:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
04:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267669354 by Notwally (talk) Multiple editors also do not support your synthesised stance."
00:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Something bad is going to happen to all of us if we don't just shut up here. Something terrible."
08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267479503 by Notwally (talk) Drop it."
07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Just drop it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

08:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on 2010: The Year We Make Contact."
03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2010: The Year We Make Contact."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

06:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Unsourced content in lead */ r"

Comments:

One editor is repeatedly restoring unsourced content to lead that is currently under discussion on talk page. Including me, two editors have reverted their edits and three editors have objected to the content on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listen.

Notwally, you started this whole ordeal by reverting everyone's edits without taking any into consideration, and attempting to bludgeon the talk page with your comments. You have also broken 3RR rule multiple times. Now stop please. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can make up whatever narratives you want. I think your contributions to the talk page discussion speak for themselves. If you think I have violated a policy, then feel free to provide that evidence. You have also now made 5 reverts in 24 hours [13]. – notwally (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Æ's old account wasn't working blocked for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chance997 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: Blocked one week)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

Comments:

Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "a [[meteorite]] containing an [[anthropomorphic]] alien [[hedgehog]]" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words "red-striped black hedgehog" at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the fictional hedgehog in question). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, User:Carlinal and User:Barry Wom, citing MOS:OVERLINK as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at Sonic the Hedgehog 2 to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ToadGuy101 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

User being reported: ToadGuy101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267757647 by CipherRephic (talk)"
14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267751974 by John (talk)Stop whining about him"
14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267747738 by Czello (talk)"
13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2024 United Kingdom general election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"

Comments:

User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Wikipedia works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. Belbury (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mindxeraser reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [29]

Comments:
Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 reported by User:DandelionAndBurdock (Result: /64 blocked two weeks)

User being reported: 2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Blocked – for a period of two weeks The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards