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:Malik-Al-Hind reported by User:Someguywhosbored (Result: User blocked for two weeks)

Page: Maurya Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malik-Al-Hind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9] and [10]

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

Comments:
Theres been a lot of discussion on the mauryan empire page about the maps that are currently in use. Malik-Al-Hind made 7 reverts over a very short period of time. I had attempted to solve this on the article and user talk pages. I sent him a warning and despite some back and forward arguing, he did claim that he would refrain from edit warring in the future. I thought that would be the end of it, until he decided to revert another edit without attaining consensus on the talk page first. Which is why I finally decided to bring this here. Worst part is, he had actually recieved another warning less than 24 hours prior for edit warring. Requesting administative intervention. Forgive me if I made any mistakes in the process of filing this report. First time I've brought an issue like this here. {Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)}

Edit warring is when you revert someone's edit thrice. I will be honest here, I did commit edit warring yesterday, I accept i didn't have a count on my reverts and I accidentally reverted for the 4th time, For which i apologized here.[12] and my apology was accepted by numerous experienced editors here [13] including by @Someguywhosbored himself here.[14]. I did promise to not engage myself in edit warring again, which was accepted. I should had made a count on my reverts, and I didn't revert anything again after that and continued seeking a consensus in the talk page. So there was no need for @Someguywhosbored to report me after this agreement.

The thing went wrong here [15] when @Edasf added a map after seeking an agreement in the talk page [16] [17] [18]. And I did nothing except for adding WP:RS sources and fixing the errors in it. [19]. @Someguywhosbored then reverted the edit when it was literally posted by the agreement of several people. To which, i reverted his edit back.

Now Let us check the definition of "edit warring"

There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.[20]

If you revert someone's edit thrice in 24 hours, you have commited edit warring. Thus I commited no edit warring here since I reverted only once, because the change was made by someone else after an agreement by several editors in the talk page. I felt like there was no reason for him to revert the changes made by @Edasf. I did commit edit warring yesterday by breaking the three revert rule yesterday by accidentally reverting for the 4th time, but i apologized to not repeat the same mistake (which I didn't repeat.) and all the editors including @Someguywhosbored himself accepted the apology. So there was no need of him to report me today.

He reverted an edit and a change which was made after the agreement of several editors, for which he got criticized by few editors too like [21][22]. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, a lot to unpack here.

“ himself here.[68]. I did promise to not engage myself in edit warring again, which was accepted. I should had made a count on my reverts, and I didn't revert anything again after that and continued seeking a consensus in the talk page. So there was no need for @Someguywhosbored to report me after this agreement.

The thing went wrong here [69] when @Edasf added a map after seeking an agreement in the talk page [70] [71][72]. And I did nothing except for adding WP:RS sources and fixing the errors in it. [73]. @Someguywhosbored then reverted the edit when it was literally posted by the agreement of several people. To which, i reverted his edit back.

Now

If you revert someone's edit thrice, you have commited edit warring. Thus I commited no edit warring here since I reverted only once, because the change was made by someone else after an agreement by several editors in the talk page.”

For one, you did revert an edit after the warning. See the last diff of the report. Secondly, I don’t quite follow your last point. You’re saying you didn’t edit war because you only made one revert after you were warned? That’s not how it works. You still made a 7th revert in the same article. You were warned multiple times and instead of taking it seriously, you continued to edit war.

“ someguywhosbored himself accepted the apology. So there was no use of him to report me today.”

I only reported you when you decided to revert an edit on the same article despite being warned. You told me you’d stop, but than you did the exact same thing.

“He reverted an edit and a change which was made after the agreement of several editors, for which he got criticized by few editors too.

I made a bold edit which I didn’t push after being reverted the second time. That’s a far cry from edit warring, nor was it even disruptive. But regardless, that’s quite irrelevant.

“ And I did nothing except for adding WP:RS sources and fixing the errors in it.”

You mean you added a map despite not gaining consensus for doing so? See BRD. ONUS was on you for gaining consensus, so you should have never reverted anybody in the first place.

It was clear that nothing was going to change until I took this issue here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"For one, you did revert an edit after the warning. See the last diff of the report. Secondly, I don’t quite follow your last point. You’re saying you didn’t edit war after the warning because you only made one revert? That’s not how it works. You still made a 7th revert in the same article. You were warned multiple times and instead of taking it seriously, you continued to edit war."

This is not how edit warring works. As I showed you the literal definition of edit warring which is to make 3 reverts under 24 hours. I apologized and promised to not "edit war" again [23], I didn't say i wouldn't revert your edit if it is against the consensus by the editors. I was warned by you, and I took the warning seriously and didn't engage in edit war at all. As I proved, I only made 1 revert in 24 hours. Which is nowhere close to edit warring. So yes I didn't edit warring after getting warned.

"I only reported you when you decided to revert an edit on the same article despite being warned. You told me you’d stop, but than you did the exact same thing."

I promised to stop "edit warring", which I did really stop from doing. When did I say i wouldn't revert someone's edit in the page if it's really needed? Moreoever you were the one who reverted edasf's edit first who literally made the change after having an agreement of several editors who were involved in the previous discussion.

"I made a bold edit which I didn’t push after being reverted the second time. That’s a far cry from edit warring, nor was it even disruptive. But regardless, that’s quite irrelevant."

It is not irrelevant though, you were making a change in the article without seeking a consensus, you were making a change to the long standing map which was there in the article since 2004. It is not 'irrelevant". Other editors criticized you for doing that.

"You mean you added a map despite not gaining consensus for doing so? See BRD. ONUS was on you for gaining consensus, so you should have never reverted anybody in the first place. It was clear that nothing was going to change until I took this issue here."

What do you mean "you added" it was Edasf who added the map after an agreement by several editors who engaged in the previous discussion in MEM. [24] [25] [26] At this point you are just doing this because you simply don't agree with the said change.

Again, I did accidentally broke the 3 revert rule by reverting for the 4th time, for which i apologized and other editors including you yourself accepted the apologies. I promised to not edit war again, which i genuinely didn't, so there was no need for a report which just got filed after more than 24 hours of the said discussion (where you yourself along with several editors gave it a chance by letting it go).. Just because I reverted your change today once it doesn't mean it was edit warring, I simply reverted back to the change Edasf made after an agreement in the talk page. Since edit warring is when you revert someone thrice in 24 hours, this is neither edit warring, nor disruptive . Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This is what you’re not getting. By reverting for the 7th time(or first time after your warning), you’re continuing to edit war. You need to read 3RR one more time.

“ An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below exemptions.”

The warning doesn’t absolve you from your previous edits.

If you make 4 edits in 24 hours, that’s edit warring. If you make a 4th revert outside of the 24 hour mark, that’s still edit warring especially if combined with other edit warring behavior. Yes that’s probably something you missed. A 4th revert outside of the 24 hour mark is still considered edit warring. It’s not 3 reverts in 24 hours and the counter resets. That’s not how it works. And getting warned doesn’t reset the amount of times you reverted previously. So by reverting again, right after getting warned, you’re continuing to edit war.

I think I made it pretty clear. If you can’t accept that, than I don’t know how to convince you on this matter so I’ll just wait until an administrator or experienced editor informs you on how it works.

“ What do you mean "you added" it was Edasf who added the map after an agreement by several editors who engaged in the previous discussion in MEM. [78] [79] [80] At this point you are just doing this because you simply don't agree with the said change.”

Again this is probably not a matter for the edit warring noticeboard. Regardless I’ll make this quick. Both you and Edasf tried adding a map without gaining consensus. Once you’ve been reverted, per WP:ONUS, the burden is on the editor who is seeking to include disputed content. For example Fowler and me both had issues with it. Fowler didn’t even think a second map was necessary, let alone a third one. Regardless, once your edit was reverted, you’re supposed to gain consensus before reverting or adding the disputed content again which you didn’t do. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Anyway I’d rather just let an admin decide on what to do than continue to argue about this. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"If you make 4 edits in 24 hours, that’s edit warring. If you make a 4th revert outside of the 24 hour mark, that’s still edit warring especially if combined with other edit warring behavior. Yes that’s probably something you missed. A 4th revert outside of the 24 hour mark is still considered edit warring. It’s not 3 reverts in 24 hours and the counter resets. That’s not how it works. And getting warned doesn’t reset the amount of times you reverted previously. So by reverting again, right after getting warned, you’re continuing to edit war.

I think I made it pretty clear. If you can’t accept that, than I don’t know how to convince you on this matter so I’ll just wait until an administrator or experienced editor informs you on how it works."

Huh,Let me Make sure that the 4th revert which I made was not even related to the topic i got warned at 24 hours ago. When I got warned for supposedly edit warring I accepted it and didn't revert it further and kept discussing in the talk page, for which you and other editors even accepted the apologies. Why is it that you reported me merely because I restored a change which was established after an agreement by several editors in the talk page, That too "after" 24 hours and the revert which I made after 24 hours wasn't even related to the previous topics. It was Edasf who posted the supposed map after "discussing" in the talk page and after getting an "agreement"[27] [28] [29]on it by almost all editors who participated in the previous discussion. You were the one who reverted him[30], I merely "restored" his revision.[31].

So this is not at all edit warring, Read again:

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below exemptions.”

Edit warring simply refers to a 4 continuous/series of reverts made within or just exact after 24 hours. My revert was neither continuous nor it was even in a series, it was not related to the previous discussion. I merely restored someone else's revision, i repeat this. I merely made 1 revert within 24 hours. So it is not edit warring.

"Again this is probably not a matter for the edit warring noticeboard. Regardless I’ll make this quick. Both you and Edasf tried adding a map without gaining consensus. Once you’ve been reverted, per WP:ONUS, the burden is on the editor who is seeking to include disputed content. For example Fowler and me both had issues with it. Fowler didn’t even think a second map was necessary, let alone a third one. Regardless, once your edit was reverted, you’re supposed to gain consensus before reverting or adding the disputed content again which you didn’t do."

What do you mean it is not related? You made a certain claim that the consensus wasn't reached, That is the point, almost every editor who participated in the previous discussion agreed, even Joshua Jonathan who was previously arguing against it[32]. Fowler indeed was having problems with the supposed second map but in the end he agreed for the status quo and accepted the second map. When you pinged him constantly for his opinions, look what he said here [33] [34], He clearly doesn't even want to get involved in the conversation anymore, he clearly said that he has better changes to make on the page rather than just arguing on maps, He has to work on the lead and he doesn't worry about it. (If he had a problem, he would revert me like he did previously). Leaving only you who is having a problem with the supposed map now and it is not like i didn't invite you for a discussion on the talk page, I clearly did and that too several times to clear your issues with it. But you never responded and always kept refraining from the discussion And when it was finally agreed by almost All editors (who took part in the previous discussion), Edasf posted the said map, which you clearly reverted without talking in the talk page. And when i merely restored his revision you accused me of edit warring, which i don't think so was edit warring given the previous reasons. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment @Malik-Al-Hind: FYI, while three reverts in 24 hours is a bright line rule, it doesn't mean that you have to break it to violate the edit warring rule. From the policy page Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached (Note: this is not a comment on the report.)RegentsPark (comment) 15:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  I do agree about that, But I clearly apologized to not do that again, The 4th revert was accidental and I still apologised for that (and I still do), The apology was accepted by several editors[35] including the reporter himself [36]. And I didn't continue to revert the map anymore after that, the infobox is still the same as it was before. You can go and check yourself. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  “I didn’t continue to revert the map anymore, the info box is the same”. That’s because I didn’t revert again. The info box wasn’t even what I was focused on in the last edit. The problem was adding a map in the body without reaching consensus first. And your edit is still there because you never decided to self revert.

  Also if you truly understood what RegentPark was saying, then you wouldn’t have pasted the same quote you sent again. Because he clearly states that edit warring can still bring forth administrative action even if you don’t break 3RR(which you did). So why did you cite the same exact quote about 3RR?

  Also you keep bringing up parts of the debate which have nothing to do with the issue at hand which is edit warring.

  “ So this is not at all edit warring, Read again:

  "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below exemptions.”

  Edit warring simply refers to a 4 continuous/series of reverts made within or just exact after 24 hours. My revert was neither continuous nor it was even in a series, it was not related to the previous discussion. I merely restored someone else's revision, i repeat this. I merely made 1 revert within 24 hours. So it is not edit warring.”

  How was it not continuous? You made these edits in less than 48 hours away from each other(at least 4 edits in 24 hours). They were on the same page. They were definitely continuous.

  And no consensus was not reached. You randomly added the third map before consensus settled on that matter. Fowler didn’t even say anything about adding the third map in the links you sent so I have no idea why you shared them?

  Anyway regardless of whether you think you’re right or wrong, you’re not supposed to edit war.

  “ I merely made 1 revert within 24 hours. So it is not edit warring”

  Your 7th revert was made literally within 24 hours of the last 3 reverts you made prior. You’re basically saying that you’re free to make another 3 reverts in the same article where you were given a warning for edit warning. Does that not just sound wrong to you? You made 7 reverts.

  Im not sure how a warning is supposed to absolve you from you’re previous reverts. Anyway this is probably going to be my last comment until an administrator arrives. I don’t think there is really a point in me debating about this. If you can’t see that your edit warring, then I’ll just let an admin explain it to you. I’m done here until then. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks since a) they have been blocked for edit warring previously this year and, b) in the wake of that, alerted to CTOPS (though I'm not making this an ArbCom enforcement block yet) So they have no excuse, least of all trying to claim (incorrectly, as Regents Park helpfully points out above) that they're in the clear because they never reverted four times in 24 hours. And though they did revert an accidental fourth revert, the problem is that they have continued making reverts.

I would say that the lengthy discussion above proves why you need to hash this out on the talk page ... except for the fact that the talk page has an even longer, yet equally heated, discussion about the actual content; here we have Malik sticking to his story that he didn't violate any policies because he followed the letter of 3RR. Well, as he is but the latest to learn, that is seriously missing the point, and when you miss that point, it usually never fails but to hit you dead-on. As it has here.

You now have a lot of time to catch your breath and reflect, Malik. Use it wisely. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:185.78.17.92 reported by User:QEnigma (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: David Harewood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 185.78.17.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "Original research is NOT correctly reflecting the references. This edit correctly reflects the sources. Please check the quoted references before reverting"
2. 18:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "That is editoralising. This correctly reflects the content and the references"
3. 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "Reparations is by definition compensation. If you want reparations here then find a suitable reference about Harewood, otherwise the heading reflects the content"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC) to 17:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 17:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Enslaved ancestors */Nothing in section is about reparations. The section is about his ancestors, with interest in acknowledgement and apologies"
   2. 17:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Politics */Unnecessary"
   3. 17:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Career */Unnecessary"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "General note: Adding original research on David Harewood."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC) on David Harewood "Restored revision 1258433621 by DeCausa (talk): Reverted. Original research. Please discuss in the talk page for a consensus"

Comments:

Continued introduction of own/self opinion in spite of repeated advice to seek a broader consensus to effecting major changes. QEnigma (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:2400:1A00:BB20:2506:70DF:A711:1461:1EF0 reported by User:VolatileAnomaly (Result: Declined)

Page: Sandeep Lamichhane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2400:1A00:BB20:2506:70DF:A711:1461:1EF0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 04:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/sandeep-lamichhane-rape-case-innocent-t20-world-cup-nepal-high-court-9331388/ This is the link of news which says he was declared innocent. https://risingnepaldaily.com/news/50553#:~:text=By%20TRN%20Online%2C%20Kathmandu%2C%20Oct,by%20issuing%20a%20press%20release. Sandeep Lamichhane was granted US visa for WCL2 series, whoever is doing this is for defamation, that part is really not needed, if someone has to get warning they are them."
3. 03:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "He was declared innocent by the court, so that part is really not needed, why to put the stain, can you please stop ultra woke nonsense."
4. 03:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "Lawsuit and allegation part is not needed, ban whoever is editing this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Sandeep Lamichhane */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC) on User talk:2400:1A00:BB20:2506:70DF:A711:1461:1EF0 "/* Sandeep Lamichhane */ new section"

Comments:

Repeated attempts to remove sourced allegations regarding public figure. Notified user of policy on talkpage. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly, please have a look at WP:BLPRESTORE and seek a consensus on the talk page before restoring the disputed content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPN is also a good option in cases like this as they will often provide more nuanced feedback and consensus than simply "all this content should stay" vs "all this content should be removed". At first glance this does look like whitewashing of notable and sourced content, but it does need better review before restoring wholesale.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ToBeFree and Ponyo for the feedback. I happened upon those edits while doing recent changes patrol and will be more cautious in the future before restoring disputed content. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and no worries ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Edasf reported by User:PadFoot2008 (Result: Stale)

Page: Maurya Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edasf (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. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

• Talk:Maurya Empire#Better Map
• Talk:Maurya Empire#Map

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43]

Comments:

My 4th edit wasn't a revert at all so I didn't violate 3RR and after 3rd revert I went talk page so ya but I would still apologise if edit war please accept it.Edasf«Talk» 11:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 actually violated it by doing a 4th revert as well a self rv. Edasf«Talk» 11:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Edasf, I self-reverted my revert, thus that revert as well as the self-revert doesn't count per WP:3RR. Additionally, your most recent edit was a partial revert as you removed one of the two maps I added, and thus it is included in 3RR as well. However, you can self-revert as well. PadFoot (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Because it was misleading I added a similar map too.@PadFoot2008 Edasf«Talk» 11:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You have violated 3RR by reverting more than 3 times. Unless you self-revert, you risk getting blocked for violating 3RR. PadFoot (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 I did a self rv Edasf«Talk» 13:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I am withdrawing my report then. PadFoot (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 Also removal of contentious thing is a exemption in 3RR Edasf«Talk» 11:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That exemption only applies to WP:BLP, i.e, Biographies of Living Persons. PadFoot (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• I am withdrawing my report as the editor has self-reverted. PadFoot (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

User:MysticCipher87(alt-account) reported by User:GhostOfDanGurney (Result: Blocked)

Page: JTG Daugherty Racing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "MysticCipher87(alt-account) moved page JTG Daugherty Racing to Hyak Motorsports over redirect"
2. 12:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "MysticCipher87(alt-account) moved page JTG Daughtery Racing to Hyak Motorsports over redirect: It's not rumors; it's confirmed by multiple sources, plus physical sources such as the shop sign was changed."
3. 12:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "MysticCipher87(alt-account) moved page JTG Daughtery Racing to Hyak Motorsports over redirect: It's not rumors; it's confirmed by multiple sources, plus physical sources such as the shop sign. was changed."
4. 11:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "MysticCipher87(alt-account) moved page JTG Daughtery Racing to Hyak Motorsports over redirect: It's confirmed by multiple sources plus physical sources such as the shop sign was changed."
5. 11:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "MysticCipher87(alt-account) moved page JTG Daugherty Racing to Hyak Motorsports over redirect: It's pretty much confirmed at this point that JTG became Hyak Motorsports."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on JTG Daughtery Racing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Hyak Motorsports "/* Team name */ new section"

Comments:

Repeatedly move warring to restore their preferred article title, despite opposition on the talk page. Reliable sources from yesterday are still using the name "JTG Daugherty Racing" MC87 responded by citing a blog that accepts WP:UGC, then moved the page again. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

User continues to edit war, and has done this on the past with other unsourced changes. glman (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, they are also currently edit warring at 2025 NASCAR Cup Series:

[44]

[45]

[46] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm counting 7 moves of the same page in less than 24 hours, absolutely inappropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Skornezy reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Phoenix Program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skornezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]
5. [52]
6. [53]
7. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Phoenix Program#K. Barton Osborne and Talk:Phoenix Program#Yes, the Phoenix Program really did officially begin in 1967; Mztourist is in denial

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [56]

Comments:
I asked for more eyes on the page on the Military History noticeboard: [57] and was accused of canvassing by Skornezy: [58]. On top of the earlier personal attack of suggesting I'm dyslexic: [59]. User:The Bushranger warned us both for edit-warring and protected the page, but declined to block because we were attempting to resolve the issues on the Talk Page. I was unable to reach any agreement with Skornezy on changes to this page. Another uninvolved user User:Intothatdarkness gave input: Talk:Phoenix_Program#Blowtorch which Skornezy ignored. Skornezy requested a third opinion here: [60], but then withdrew the request here: [61]. Skornezy then went and made all their edits again: [62], which is a continuation of the edit-war and clear breach of the edit-war warning. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that there is no WP:3RR violation since the page had been protected for 24 hours, I'm not sure how my recent edits after the page-protection expired can be considered edit warring [63] and the admin who protected the page, User:The Bushranger, at least tacitly didn't think so either because he did not block me when Mztourist asked him to and instead suggested Mztourist take it to WP:EWN [64]; Mztourist in response said that he was "very disappointed" in the admin and accused the admin of apparently "ducking this." [65]

While I admit, and apologize, that my edits before the page-protection constituted edit-warring and a violation of WP:3RR (as were Mztourist's edits), my recent edits consisted of the addition of reliable sources unrelated to our dispute on when the Phoenix Program began [66][67][68] and objective improvements by correcting the misspelling of a person's name [69]. I also removed an inaccurate citation of Woodruff 2000 [70] that went unnoticed and undiscussed when Mztourist added it to the article in August 2020 [71]. During the period of page-protection, I clearly pointed this out to Mztourist on the talk page that his citation of Woodruff 2000 to state that "Osborne [sic] served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented" is not accurate because Woodruff 2000 itself states that "American contribution to the Phung Hoang Program was officially born on December 20, 1967, under the operation name, "Phoenix"! [72] Moreover, I engaged in discussion to demonstrate why I think Woodruff is an unreliable WP:PRIMARY source, [73] including by providing reliable sources with more credentials than Woodruff has that state that Woodruff engages in "revisionist military history"[74], makes erroneous claims, and "ignores the individual experiences of the majority of the soldiers who voluntarily spoke to reporters, participated in ad hoc war crimes hearings, or contacted their congressmen"[75]. Is this not a form of WP:BRD or am I mistaken here?

I didn't "accuse" you of of canvassing. In that diff I simply asked you: "who did you ping? I suspect you're now trying to improprely [sic] WP:Canvass the article to push your preferred version." [76]

"On top of the earlier personal attack of suggesting I'm dyslexic"

Why are you not mentioning that I already I apologized to you for that comment? [77] That comment was wrong and I apologize again; I was frustrated and it was wrong to ask that. Moreover, why are you also not mentioning that you repeatedly violated WP:AGF with comments such as these throughout pretty much our entire discussion? "You clearly have no interest in actually improving the page to accurately describe the evolution of what became Phoenix, rather you just want to just want to reinforce your view that the US military and CIA were systematically torturing and murdering people ... Claiming repeatedly that you have done so is dishonest ... You really are devoting a lot of time to pushing your POV here, rather than actually improving pages ... The anti-US POV that you push across multiple pages. Why am I assuming you're not acting in good faith? ... seems pretty disingenuous ... I don't AGF from you at this point" [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]

Another uninvolved user User:Intothatdarkness gave input: which Skornezy ignored.

How did I ignore that user when I clearly responded to him, engaged with his points, [84] [85] and addressed them by providing excerpts from reliable sources? [86] Moreover, as you'll noitce, User:Intothatdarkness himself left the discussion, stating "I'll leave you to your clear misunderstanding of how things work. Sorry to have wasted my time here." [87] Why would you say that I ignored him when I very clearly did not and he left the discussion on his own accord?

"Skornezy requested a third opinion here: [102], but then withdrew the request here: [103]"

Okay? I didn't feel it was pertinent, what does that have to do with edit-warring? Skornezy (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what Mztourist even finds objectionable about these recent edits [88] for it be even considered edit-warring; our main dispute was over when the Phoenix Program began, but those edits have nothing to do with that. Skornezy (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a 3RR breach for it to be edit-warring. Reinstating your changes as soon as the 24hr protection expired was a continuation of the edit-warring. Mztourist (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, what exactly do you find objectionable about my recent edits? They're unrelated to our dispute over when the Phoenix Program began. I broached the topic with you here [89] when you complained to the admin to have me blocked on the talk page, but you never replied and instead filed this report. Skornezy (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Page protected By The Bushranger Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that was before this filing - the protection had expired and the OP believes the edit-warring had continued, hence their filing. As for why I didn't engage further on the issue - it was largely because when I came across this issue (notified by the OP's posting on WT:MILHIST), both of the participants here were edit-warring and were in fact past 3RR. Given there appeared to be an attempt at discussion ongoing at the article talk page, I decided it would be more constructive to revert the page to the status quo ante bellum and protect it for 24 hours, allowing discussion to proceed. When it didn't resolve the issue, I suggested it come here instead of taking further action as, given the circumstances, I was not entirely comfortable unilaterally taking further action on the issue without input from other admins, and hence here we are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Mztourist and The Bushranger!
• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:SatelliteChange (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Bratislava

User being reported: Dasomm

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:
Hello, shortly I’ve made an infobox update of Bratislava which includes some more notable monuments of Bratislava as a capital and historic city. Now, i’m not saying that it should stay like that, but keep reverting my edits and giving explaination like “I prefer it this way better” shows that username Dasomm just wants to edit for his personal pleasure which that not Wikipedia is about. To continue, the old version had 3 pictures that show the st. Martins Cathedral, which is unnecessary and as a person who lives in Austria and Slovakia, knows that there are more valuable monuments to Bratislava infobox. This is the first time I’m writing a complaint and I know we can make it work. We can share and fix what’s bothering but not revert my edits, just beacuse someone perfers his own edit more.

SatelliteChange — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatelliteChange (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 November 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) 23:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

User:ImagineDragonsFan101 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: )

Page: Fortnite Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ImagineDragonsFan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Added Information"
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC) to 22:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 22:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Song announcements"
   2. 22:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Important Information about song announcements"
3. 22:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Added Important Information; with property linking"
4. 22:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Added Important Content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Dan Reynolds."
2. 22:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "re"
3. 22:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "re"
4. 23:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
5. 23:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New user that doesn't seem to be willing to listen to messages, advice and warnings. Assuming good faith, but this is disruptive. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 23:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)