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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:21, 25 September 2021

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)
1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163
1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Araesmojo (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: "Difficult to post due to fast paced nature of Portal:Current_events Multiple days, same behavior. Examples from Sept. 19th shown below. Behavior has been ongoing for months."

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_May_12&type=revision&diff=1022949962&oldid=1022925020%7C

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Current_events&oldid=1023348929

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlsoriano97&type=revision&diff=1045470261&oldid=1043461440

Comments:

Long standing issue with user Alsoriano97 on the page Portal Current Events that has proved difficult to resolve due to rapid pace of Portal Current Events, and the current page changing every day. User has a history of 3+ reverts on multiple days over multiple months and has often been enforcing their personal view of what Portal Current Events "should" contain. User has been warned previously, and had a long discussion on the talk page of Portal Current Events that has been linked. Discussion has further examples of revert behavior. Have also archived list of all stories on Portal Current Events redacted (usually with limited comment) at User:Araesmojo/News_Stories_Redacted

User:LocalTVFanatic reported by User:Destroyeraa (Result: Indef)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5] Was warned previously in a separate incident.

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7] User also attacked User:JellyMan9001 on his talk page, and left harassment on the talk page of Cluebot Commons. User did not resolve to BRD despite a talk page thread started by JellyMan9001. Destroyer (Alternate account) 00:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped it because upon further research of the shows and their stations, I think he's right about the programs not having aired on G4. His attitude worries me though as it could potentially scare off newcomers. This whole situation reminds me of 15-year-old me who was given rollback privileges wayyyy to early and let it get to his head. JellyMan9001 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment Here because I was informed by 2600:1004:B01C:12A3:CD2A:23A5:2EE1:E31F (talk · contribs) about the issue. I've reverted the false series list from the article; LTVF could have been a lot calmer in this dispute, but they've been CheckUser'ed, so that's neither here nor there now. The false shows list was contributed here and several times before by 64.231.141.64 (talk · contribs), who was contributing other junk we had to clean up and is now under a 1m block. Hopefully this is the end of it; next time, please use the edit summaries to describe the reason for reversion rather than just getting into a rollback war. Nate • (chatter) 15:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interfering with this report but. Even though I wasn't invited, they also have been removing the dubbed names in the Pokémon Master Journeys: The Series. I asked him on his talk page if he could send me a link if a WikiProject or Wikipedia rule said that dubbed names are only allowed, but he continued to revert it. I added the dubbed names because Yowashi added the dubbed names before the English episodes aired see here and here. They said in the notes that you shouldn't add the dubbed episodes but I looked at the notes and they don't mention anything about "don't add dubbed names until the episode aired". All I see in the notes are the episode number, other English-speaking countries following the Japanese order, and how English episodes are released quarterly while others outside are released weekly. Anyways, if the programs didn't air on G4, and we can't find a source online to prove that, I think I should revert my edit. 🎧⋆JennilyW♡🎶 (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they're right, that does not excuse edit warring, and there definitely seem to be civility issues. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm worried about potential newcomers being scared off by somebody angrily demanding them to stop editing in their talkpage. JellyMan9001 (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely – by Callanecc (talk · contribs) as a checkuser block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:78.66.46.101 reported by User:FormalDude (Result: Warned)

User being reported: 78.66.46.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

08:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1045960451 by FormalDude (talk)"
08:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Reception */ I can literally go on Baidu right now and search about the book and even download a translated version of it. This also states that the book isn't banned because "chinese people don't read books anyway". Is Wikipedia supposed to be openly racist now?"
08:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1045862141 by Mandarax (talk)"
20:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "The source saying the book is banned from online discussion also claims the letter N is banned in China. It's absolute nonsense. The next two sources then state that the book is not banned."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

08:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Animal Farm."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

08:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC) on User talk:78.66.46.101 "RCP send warning to 78.66.46.101 about Animal Farm"

Comments:

User is continuing to edit war over the removal of well sourced content simply because they disagree with what it says. ––FormalDude talk 08:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it well sourced content if I can disprove it in four seconds? Being able to read about the book on Baidu means online discussion of it is not banned. Also, why should there be a bit by some racists in the Atlantic saying Chinese people don't read books and therefor the book isn't banned. Should we go to the page for every single book on Wikipedia now and list every country where it isn't banned? This reeks of sinophobia. –– 78.66.46.101 (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes should be discussed at the article talk page. This report is about your violation of the three-revert rule. ––FormalDude talk 10:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: The IP editor is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a consensus for their change on the article talk page. The material you are taking out appears to have sources. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mzanzi sa reported by User:Greenman (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

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

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Echo1Charlie reported by User:Satrar (Result: No violation; both users warned)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

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

Comments:
This user has a long history of edit warring and has been also previously reported. Moreover, they are again and again removing the maintenance templates without resolving the issue. Satrar (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here the editor @Satrar: was misquoting the source and changing the content and i was reverting it as good-faith-revert. So I request the admin to verify whether my edit/ revert are reasonable, also please cross check the inline citations. Thank you—Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I want to let you know that the editor who filed this, was duly informed of his action as [22] here but the editor was interested in [23] removing the warning rather than checking fault is on who's side. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also it can be seen in the edit summary (of diffs provided) that I'm requesting the said editor to cross check the facts which the inline citations provided and advised him to create a talk section and convey his objections there; please see the edit summary of each diffs —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The reported user talks about good faith but fails to assume so when labelling a benign edit summary as dubious. Something appears to be mystifying about this user's editing behaviour. samee converse 06:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This [24] was the dubious edit summary I mentioned and he (@Samee) talking about here; the said edit summary by @Samee: was "Copyedit (minor)" but he swiftly removed POV template, when advised to discuss the matter and this was the response I got " A 4-month old bold, well-versed need not teach others how to edit Wikipedia." —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Respected admin, if they (both I assumed to be pakistani, their area of interest, edit say so) if they can block a proactive Indian editor they can further their agenda as seen here [25] , here [26] and here [27] —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you are racially profiling me and lamenting on ethnic terms. Seriously?? Satrar (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how calling one pakistani become racial profiling??? I think it's proud for a pakistani to be called so. Also I clearly stated "it's my assumption" and not called so don't play the non-existent victim card—Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why I arguing my edits are good faith

[28] this edit made by @Satrar: is factually incorrect (which I've stated in the edit summary and advised to check the source; but he ignored), to verify the claim please refer page 19 of this https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Asia/0510pp_kashmir.pdf inline citation which says (1). Only 2% of thee responders from Jammu and Kashmir(Indian controlled area) wanted to join pakistan; while the editor @Satrar: edited it as "95% of respondents voted for all of Kashmir to accede to Pakistan" [29] which is factually incorrect and misquoted
In the same edit diff it can be seen that "while in Jammu and Kashmir (state) administered by India 28% voted to join India and only 2% voted to join Pakistan" claim is removed while it is clearly stated in the same cited source and same page number.
Similarly in this [30] edit the same admin removed the cited content although the cited source (https://theprint.in/defence/8-pieces-of-clinching-evidence-that-show-how-iafs-abhinandan-shot-down-a-pakistani-f-16/278752/) clearly states that as About 45–50 seconds after his R-73 launch and about 7 km inside PoK, the MiG-21 was hit by an AMRAAM fired by a PAF F-16. ; without verifying the claim the editor @Satrar: quickly removed the content with edit summary "Reverting vandalism and removal of poorly sourced material" [31] and edit summary [32] "Don't do edit war and state your concerns on talk page" and still he hasn't responded to the very same talk section he mentioned in his edit summary or the section I've created and invited him to discuss here; from these edits he made on two articles his intention are clear which is (1) spread false information on Wikipedia (2) mislead the reader (3) further the pakistani agenda —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I said my edits are qualified as good faith, I hope the admins will take wise decision here. Thank you —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (non-involved user) the 3rd diff listed is actually an edit made by the reporter. Also, while Echo1Charlie has made 4 edits to that page in 24 hours, they are 2 pairs of consecutive edits, not 4 separate reverts. The last edit is restoring a tag that the other editor wanted retained. At this point it appears to be a "no violation" (imho). Also, the editor being reported wasn't notified on their talk page, but a note has since been added there. Perhaps this dispute should be carried over to the article talk page, and if a consensus cannot be found, then perhaps these editors should go to Dispute Resolution (again jmho) - wolf 07:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wolf absolutely incorrect. They were notified with edit warring template well before time. I'm just wondering why suddenly your interest aroused and you have jumped in out of no where keeping in view similar history of yours of edit warring and personal attacks for which you have been blocked for 8 times. (: Aren't we going towards WP:MEAT? Satrar (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Satrar: 1) Yes, before filing an ANEW report, you need to warn the other user about any potential edit warring, which it appears you did do. But after you file a report, you must notify them of said report. This is clearly stated at the top of this page. It appears you did not do this. I was just letting you know for future reference. 2) Uninvolved editors can and do comment on various noticeboard reports. This is not unusual, and there is nothing nefarious about that. I merely pointed out an error in your report and noted that (imo) there isn't a violation here so far. 3) I have no idea why you have taken such a hostile attitude here, and really... what does my block log have to do anything? Your comments border on the obnoxious. And accusing someone of violating a policy without proof can itself be a violation of WP:NPA (yes, falsely accusing me of "meat puppetry" is a personal attack). I suggest you either retract the accusation and apologize, or take your chances and file a report a SPI. But either way, you should really dial down this bellicose attitude of yours. It's completely unnecessary. - wolf 08:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respected admins, interestingly this arrogance was guiding @Satrar: the whole time, note that. Thanks —Echo1Charlie (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His displeased reply to the editor @Thewolfchild, misquoting the sources, not responding to the talk section, unreasonable revert and removal made to the cited content, his biased and misleading reporting here etc., proves my previous assumption "he need to block a proactive Indian editor so that he can spread false information and further their agenda with impunity" —Echo1Charlie (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've a request admins, please exercise your rollback right to revert both of these articles if you're satisfied with the inline citations (which clearly backup the claims I made), as this editor won't cooperate or discuss this matter on the respective talk pages (still he hasn't responded after hours!), strangely he would revert the content if I make a change although it's clearly stated in the inline citation. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No violation. Both users are warned to stop attacking each other. Both have labeled the other's edits vandalism in edit summaries, which constitutes a personal attack and is far less likely to result in a resolution of the content dispute. Both editors should stop editing the article until the content dispute has been resolved. Echo1 has begun a conversation on the article Talk page. Satrar should respond on the Talk page, and both editors should focus on the dispute, not on each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krupsofa reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: Sock blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

10:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC) "Bringing sources, one is an interview of Si El-Hachemi Assad (member of HCA) there is no more reliable."
23:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "It's a fact and tamazight isn't taugh in primary school."
21:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Newspaper article talking about statement which is still promugalted, one month later"
11:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

23:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Attempts at discussion with them on their talk page do not appear to have been heeded, as they keep adding unreliable sources, and have not attempted to discuss much. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are also a block evading sock of Noname_JR (please see the SPI confirmation on fr.wp). M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheInkakaiRises reported by User:John Cline (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

This user participated in an uncontroversial technical request to have the page Fireal moved to Inkakai. After a contest was raised, a requested move was started and is in progress. This user who has an apparent conflict of interest decided instead to perform a cut and paste move which has disjointed the article history and confused the requested move. Several attempts to revert this action by different editors were all reverted by this user. Their cut and paste move needs to be undone and they need to be stopped from forcing their wrong ways.--John Cline (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ivar the Boneful reported by User:Rab V (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [42]

Comments:
User:Rab V what exactly are you trying to accomplish with this? You made three reverts yourself [43], [44], [45]. I'm the one that initiated the talk page discussion. You then immediately re-reverted, telling me to discuss on the talkpage! Congrats, you won the race to the drama boards! Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you took it to the talk page but continuing to violate 3RR rule after discussing on talk page impedes any helpful discussion. Rab V (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only made 2 reverts also. The first edit was novel and not removing anything added prior. Rab V (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:StalwartGrantist reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046051753 by HistoryofIran (talk) Added correct flag of Pahlavi Iran for infobox "Succeeded by." Added template:History of Azerbaijan. The Pahlavi Iran article itself states that its official ENGLISH name was "Imperial State of Persia" until 1935 (When Reza Shah requested that it be changed to match the native endonym "Iran"). This article should match that pattern, since Qajar immediately preceded Pahlavi."
18:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046047759 by HistoryofIran (talk) "Persia" was the official ENGLISH name of the country used by foreign powers in correspondence with Qajar Iran (this is an English-language article). The Qajars and the rest of the Qizilbash were Persianized/Iranicized Shia Oghuz Turks living in Persia/Iran (i.e. the basic modern definition of ethnic Azerbaijanis)."
17:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046045894 by LouisAragon (talk) It has to do with the classification of the Qajar tribe, which includes the Qajar royal dynasty, as Azerbaijanis. It's the source used in the Qajar Tribe's wiki article"
13:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1045989564 by Excommunicato (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 02:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC) to 11:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
1. 02:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 11:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "/* AA2 advisory */"
18:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC) "/* 3RR */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Said editor is using an ethnographic source from 1994 that specifically deals with the Russian Empire and Soviet Union to press a pro-Azerbaijani narrative, in violation of WP:DUE, WP:RS and WP:VER, on an article about a historic Iranian realm. They are persistent in changing "of Turkic origin", into "Azerbaijani Oghuz Turkic origin", and are also trying to add "Template:History of Azerbaijan" to the article. Zero attempts have been made by said user to open a talk page section in order to reach a WP:CON (thus structurally violating WP:BRD in addition to WP:WAR). It must be noted that said user, although being registered on Wikipedia for a year, has already received numerous warnings by other editors within a relatively short time span, as can be seen on their talk page,[46] so I believe this is more than just an overal issue in relation to sheer edit-warring and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:BUDFJDK reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Indefinite partial block)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

15:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046415361 by Masterhatch (talk) relevant information on claims to Bir Tawil is being removed without sufficient reason"
14:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046413574 by Masterhatch (talk)"
14:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046412189 by Bonadea (talk)"
14:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046411203 by Bonadea (talk)"
14:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046407635 by Masterhatch (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

14:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Bir Tawil."
15:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
15:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "/* September 2021 */ add"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There have been plenty of talk page discussions over a period of several years, and there is a robust consensus against including the kind of claims BUDFJDK keeps adding. BUDFJDK has been pointed to that consensus, several times. bonadea contributions talk 15:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely from editing Bir Tawil. Bishonen | tålk 15:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:46.2.60.185 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

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

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

Comments:

Said IP has decided to add ethnicity to the lead of the article, which violates MOS:Ethnicity. IP has also made ethnic additions to other articles as well.Xerxes of Sophene and Zariadres.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:212.70.245.180 reported by User:Sjö (Result: Semi)

User being reported: 212.70.245.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046440096 by Sjö (talk)"
17:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046439284 by Notfrompedro (talk)"
17:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046438187 by Notfrompedro (talk)"
17:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "better with these girls"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Barefoot."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Result: Page semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:LambdofGod reported by User:SnowFire (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: Old version Diff of LambdofGod's original bold edit

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Henri de Tonti

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [59]

Comments:
LambdofGod is an Italian nationalist editor out to say that every famous person in history with a vague connection to Italy was Italian, even with none-to-shaky sources (see additions to Charlemagne talking about how he was secretly descended from Romans from the Italian peninsula sourced to rootsweb (not a reliable soruce) diff or really any of their contributions. To be sure, this is not always incorrect, but Tonti in particular has a very loose connection to Italy (lived hundreds of years before Italy existed, served the Kingdom of France, wrote in French, etc.). Opened a talk page discussion and happy to work with him if he can provide solid, reliable sources, but he prefers to just do a slow-moving revert war instead without discussion, here and on other articles. SnowFire (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gkl329Hf293 reported by User:Elwoz (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I did not post anything on the article talk page myself, but I did post [65] on the user's talk page, inviting them to discuss their reversions with me on the article talk page. This seemed more likely to get their attention, since the user appears to be new and might not be familiar with talk pages. They responded by blanking their talk page, [66], and reverting the article again (revert #4 above).

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [67]

Comments:
Looking at this user's contributions, they appear also to be reverting Analytic signal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (e.g. [68]) and I wonder whether Gdb29fd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ab12Ds32F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ‎X2821yl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same person.

Elwoz (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I was writing this notice, Jg87lk96kl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited for the first time ever — to perform the exact same revert that Gkl329Hf293 has been performing: [69] Elwoz (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elwoz: I got all you noted and more. They are all blocked and tagged. Please let me know if I missed any or if new ones show up. Note that they edited quite a few different articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re:Bbb23 Thanks for the quick response. I listed all the socks I knew about, will keep an eye out for new ones.

@@ Line 377: / Line 377: @@
 : While I was writing this notice, {{userlinks|Jg87lk96kl}} edited for the first time ever — to perform the exact same revert that Gkl329Hf293 has been performing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dirac_delta_function&diff=prev&oldid=1046468321] [[User:Elwoz|Elwoz]] ([[User talk:Elwoz|talk]]) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 ::{{re|Elwoz}} I got all you noted and more. They are all blocked and tagged. Please let me know if I missed any or if new ones show up. Note that they edited quite a few different articles.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 21:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
+:::{{re:Bbb23}} Thanks for the quick response.  I listed all the socks I knew about, will keep an eye out for new ones.

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 and 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