Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159
1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Disruptive behaviour coming from User:Vlaemink on Talk:Limburgish as reported by User:De Wikischim

On Talk:Limburgish, user:Vlaemink, keeps on putting back their blatant personal attacks towards me, in which they're constantly trying in a very sordid way to defamate my intentions regarding the main subject (see here for the last revert, already preceded by [1]). Please consider at least forbidding Vlaemink to put this PA back again, and/or giving them a (temporary, though I personally believe a more permanent banning would be the best option here after all) banning for the relevant Talk page.

Note: in spite of your standard instructions, I'm not gonna notify Vlaemink separately on their own talk page. I hope this isn't really a very big issue here? First, they should already get an automatic notification. Second, I actually try to avoid them as much as possible. De Wikischim (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC) P.S. Still some more examples of their defamating/derogatory/completely off-topic .etc. comments especially towards me during the last few days: [2] (from "That's beyond childish....") and [3]. This is still not everything. De Wikischim (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De Wikischim seeks to replace parts of other users' comments with the RPA-tag, despite the comments involved not constituting (let alone blatant) personal attacks as per WP:NPA. The goal is either to annoy or to use the RPA-tags to create the suggestion for casual or (later) involved readers that an actual PA was part of another users comment, often some time (days) after the remark was made and after the discussion has already progressed; or to use term PA to delete publically avaiable information about him, which he does not like. For example, here he claimed that the statement that he has been blocked numerous times for edit warring and is subjected to arbcom measures because of this [4] was a PA, even though this is easily verifiable and a link was in fact provided in support of it [5].

He has been advised and explicitly asked by another user to stop deleting comments and adding RPA-tags and to ″leave it to uninvolved editors who actually see PAs here″. I myself have of course also, repeatedly, asked him to stop his removal of comments and suggesting they are personal attacks, which he has consistently refused; resorting to threats and intimidation at several points. Vlaemink (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on the above. Though Vlaemink seems to have stopped for now putting back the PA since I last removed it yesterday from Talk:Limburgish, elsewhere they are using terms like vindictiveness to refer to my supposed intentions (see here on another user's talk page). I consider this another part of the defamation, which should be stopped asap.

Still another ongoing issue in this whole affair: Vlaemink uses hereabove and elsewhere the pronoun he to refer to my account, though I on my part have not published my gender anywhere here on WP. So this can be considered privacy violation/unveiling personal data. (Aggravating circumstance: last year, Vlaemink was already partially blocked because of a similar issue with another user, see for example here). De Wikischim (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight: you claim that my mentioning of your extensive block log [6] is a ″blatant personal attack″, but see no problem at all with mentioning mine? How does that work, exactly?

And are you seriously suggesting that me using he when not using your username constitutes ″a privacy violation or unveiling personal data″? When you have never, ever, indicated this was a problem before or that you had preferred pronouns of any sort? You are really clutching at straws here.

I think and hope that the admins here have seen more than their share of editor-disputes and will see right through this obvious ploy. Trying to get a disagreeing editor blocked by trying to pass off critical comments as PA's, by calling the kettle black and making up privacy violations ... In my opinion you've gone beyond the ridiculous here. Vlaemink (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Take this to AN/I. Now. This was posted here without any pretense whatsoever of it being a report. You just wanted to show off how passionately you can abuse each other. This is the equivalent of you and your Uber driver calling 9-1-1 (or 112, or 999, or whatever) to complain about some misunderstanding over what radio station to listen to. @Vlaemink:, @De Wikischim:, if I come back here within 24 hours and this thread is still here, you will both be blocked indefinitely from this page. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Sorry but as a still rather unexperienced user here on the English WP, I'm not familiar enough yet with the standard procedures in all cases like this one. If you find this request misuse [by me] of this noticeboard and it should therefore be removed, then please just go ahead and do so. Of course I want to respect the prevailing rules fully.

However, if the ongoing problems I've explained hereabove are not solved/tackled in some other way, I think I'll give up contributing to this topic (Limburgish) for now, as it's actually impossible to do so with these ongoing attacks towards me while they are apparently left unsanctioned here. De Wikischim (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:49.195.79.115 reported by User:R0paire-wiki (Result: Already blocked one week)

User being reported: 49.195.79.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "more accurate language"
11:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "wording was previously and deliberately misleading, using dehumanising language to describe a vulnerable group of human individuals. A "foetus" is scientifically a human individual, in their foetal stage of development. Unanimously agreed upon by scientists globally."
11:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC) ""
11:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "clearer language without key categorical information omitted to dehumanise the human in foetal stage of development"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

11:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
11:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Abortion in Australia."
11:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to a neutral point of view (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated unnecessary POV-pushing and edit warring R0paire-wiki (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

global consensus among biologists: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/ 49.195.79.115 (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is utterly irrelevant. You write in your edit summary that "A "foetus" is scientifically a human individual, in their foetal stage of development. Unanimously agreed upon by scientists globally." Yet you remove foetus because it's "dehumanising" and change to "unborn individual human"? This is blatant disruptive editing. AusLondonder (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of their edit summaries since says "... previous edit did not define what species of animal was in their foetal stage of development." is very disingenuous and in bad-faith trying to synthesise a justification. It is very blatant. R0paire-wiki (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor also caused a blatant copyright violation. This edit [7] is a complete copy/paste job from the very source they added to the article. Other edits are clear violations of WP:SYNTH in an attempt to push their personal worldview into the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked for a period of 1 week by Jake Wartenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I will also be leaving a CTOPS alert on the IP's talk page and a notice on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect 49.186.44.94 to be this user block evading. Very similar edits to Abortion in Australia.

Edits: 1, 2, 3, 4 R0paire-wiki (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tredanielsunf reported by User:Magical Golden Whip (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

04:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "show has ended, no talk page active to discuss this change. Sixth season cycle notes can be found in production section."
03:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "show has ended and line remains irrelevant to introduction."
02:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251613209 by Magical Golden Whip (talk) no revision notes or reasoning"
19:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251513618 by Magical Golden Whip (talk) still no notes from previous revert"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Raven's Home."
03:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Raven's Home."
04:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Final warning notice."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring over Six Season still being deleted was reverted a few days ago as well. Mainly reverted due to WP:Not Broken then WP:DE due to the first warning I gave. Didn’t apptepte to come to a sense on talk page. I did release after my last revert I went over my limit and was my mistake, but was mainly trying to just restore the page with the sixth season being there as in my opion it was fine and not an issue. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magical Golden Whip: While I do agree that the other user is bring disruptive, with all due respect, as you do a lot of good work here, I would kindly suggest you use caution from here onward, as you are just as guilty in terms of edit warring and could easily see yourself blocked as well, which I do not want to see for you. Whether you're right or wrong is up to consensus on the article talk page. However, while there are some exceptions to continuously reverting another user or IP, your edits do not fall under said exemptions, as listed at WP:3RRNO. Add: Also, given the nature of this, it probably would have been better to let someone uninvolved start this since, as I mentioned earlier, you are involved and just as guilty in terms of edit warring. Amaury • 07:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have handled this differently and will in the future. If mine was reverted by someone else who did seem to have more experience than me I would have left it alone. However should have stooped the reverting. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined per discussion above. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:223.29.234.202 {Declined)

User being reported: 223.29.234.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Disruptive user not knowing the difference between model years and production years, stubbornly adding "production" as a descriptor for common model years.

Previous version reverted to:

[8]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[13]

YBSOne (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same IP and the related 202.47.32.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are edit warring on numerous Lancia pages, also at Lancia Flaminia. Not here to work in a collaborative manner. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined You have not warned them in any way that I can see that they are edit warring. No wonder they keep doing it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that Template:Uw-ew was to inform of a noticeboard. YBSOne (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:1.145.52.239 reported by User:TryAgainSooner (Result: No violation)

User being reported: 1.145.52.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

12:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "No. He was born in Argentina. Calling him British-Irish is incorrect."
10:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "He was born in Argentina."
09:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC) ""
07:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

15:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"
Also two warnings from @Felida97: Special:Diff/1251673482

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Already discussed on main article talk page:

User has been advised to revive these discussions, but has chosen not to do so, see edit summaries of Special:Diff/1251662464, Special:Diff/1251660017, Special:Diff/1251658157.

Comments:

Edit war by IP address, has been reverted by many pending change reviewers multiple times, but keeps adding the same change. Has been warned 3 times, and has reverted 4 times, breaking WP:3RR. The topic has already been discussed on the article's talk page many times, see Talk:Chris_de_Burgh#Nationality and IP has been advised to restart discussion if they wish, but has chosen not to do so (in edit summaries and with the edit war warning template). 🔄️TryAgainSooner🕑 🗣️ 15:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.} The user has only reverted three times. The edit being reverted to does not itself count as a revert. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:2601:2C1:C200:7090:34D9:F1F1:A52C:C34E reported by User:Nimbus227 (Result: /64 blocked 35 hours)

and 2601:2C1:C200:7090:8DBF:EDAB:FA06:84F5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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] and [21]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22] and [23]

Comments:
Guideline shortcut links repeatedly added to edit summaries, no responses to either user talk edit warring notice on first IP or article talk page request. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours The /64, to be precise. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lb01234 reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Already blocked 24 hours)

User being reported: Lb01234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC) to 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
1. 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "The previous editing was based on citations that did not reflect the subject or were not from official reports by institutions responsible for providing accurate information. Some of the sources were mostly personal opinions or studies, not official institutional reports."
2. 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "The previous editing was based on citations that did not reflect the subject or were not from official reports by institutions responsible for providing accurate information. Some of the sources were mostly personal opinions or studies, not official institutional reports."
Consecutive edits made from 18:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC) to 18:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
1. 18:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "The previous editing was based on citations that did not reflect the subject or were not from official reports by institutions responsible for providing accurate information. Some of the sources were mostly personal opinions or studies, not official institutional reports."
2. 18:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "The previous editing was based on citations that did not reflect the subject or were not from official reports by institutions responsible for providing accurate information. Some of the sources were mostly personal opinions or studies, not official institutional reports."
18:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "The previous editing was based on citations that did not reflect the subject or were not from official reports by institutions responsible for providing accurate information. Some of the sources were mostly personal opinions or only one part historic studies, not official institutional reports."
18:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "The previous editing was based on citations that did not reflect the subject or were not from official reports by institutions responsible for providing accurate information. Some of the sources were mostly personal opinions or studies, not official institutional reports."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing."
18:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 rapid-fire reverts within the last 30 minutes or so, with identical edit-summaries, removing sourced information. There is every indication that this will continue indefinitely without a block. Khirurg (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they're socking with another account as well ][24]. Khirurg (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked for a period of 24 hours by Ad Orientem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:194.38.172.194 and User:194.230.146.37 reported by User:Theklan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Carles Puigdemont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 194.230.146.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 194.38.172.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:194.38.172.194#Edit_warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's a consensus over the first sentence of this article, with a long RfC. It has been added to the edits, and explained to the user.

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

Comments:
There is a long RfC available here: Talk:Carles_Puigdemont/Archive_5. The user doesn't seem interested on that, and is not only adding the word Spain in the first sentence (which goes against the consensus), he is also adding it way more times in the article. Theklan (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hahonryuu reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Power Girl."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A string of edit warring dating back a year as early as June 1, 2023. Clearly WP:NOTHERE to communicate with other editors and has ignored warnings in edit summaries and at their talk. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:KryptonianHero reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked indef)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

02:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: You are a suspected sockpuppet of User:Hahonryuu."
03:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Power Girl."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Appears to be a block evasion of a WP:Single-purpose account, making same edits as Hahonryuu. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears the editor is intent on continuing their disruptive edit warring with this pseudo threat message at my talk. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:CubicStar reported by User:Nervren (Result: Declined as edit warring took place on elwiki)

Page: Συζήτηση:Απελευθέρωση της Αθήνας (1944)
User being reported: CubicStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[34] (05:41, 18 Οκτωβρίου 2024)
[35] (06:59, 18 Οκτωβρίου 2024)
[36] (09:42, 18 Οκτωβρίου 2024)
[37] (10:24, 18 Οκτωβρίου 2024)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I cannot post to user's talk page. Comments are restricted.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is really the talk page that the user makes edit war to me.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Same as before.

Comments:

This user does not let me post on the original article, nor to the talk page of the article. He also doesn't leave edit summaries anywhere.

(I didn't find a procedure for non-english articles so I post here. The page link at the top doesn't work as expected so I posted it as external link.)

Nervren (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on the Greek Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia - we have no influence over edit warring on other Wikis. You're going to have to take this to their edit warring noticeboard. — Czello ^(music) 13:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks I just found it. It's not that organized but I'll try. Have a nice day. Nervren (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined per above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:37.155.85.235 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 37.155.85.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

16:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251884023 by StephenMacky1 (talk) He was perpetrator of the 1821 Tripolitsa massacre and he ordered several massacres. I don't see where is the problem. Trying to hide these facts is problematic, I think."
16:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251883714 by Leonidlednev (talk)"
16:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251882742 by Mellk (talk)"
16:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251879443 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
16:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251877920 by Mellk (talk)"
15:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

16:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Theodoros Kolokotronis."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent edit warring and addition of POV material. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was responsible for 1821 Tripolitsa massacre. It is not a POV. Even greeks themselves are accepting this and boasting about that barbaric massacre. Where is the problem? 37.155.85.235 (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Hey man im josh. Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:49.186.44.94 reported by User:R0paire-wiki (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 49.186.44.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

08:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "ropaire bot is definitely broken/r3t@rded. can not read simple legislation linked in the paragraph. the legislation specifically cites "unborn child". ropaire bot possible illiterate"
08:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "R0paire bot is citing incorrect quotes from official NSW legislation, citing "foetus" and not "unborn child" as is clearly explicitly stated in official NSW legislative documents. bot possibly r3t@rded?"
Consecutive edits made from 07:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC) to 07:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
1. 07:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252004900 by R0paire-wiki (talk). bot is wrong"
2. 07:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252004143 by R0paire-wiki (talk). bot is wrong"
07:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "clearer statistics cited than the inaccurate assumption abortion support is growing and a majority. it is actually the opposite"
Consecutive edits made from 07:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC) to 07:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
1. 07:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Direct quote from legislation mentions "unborn child" not foetus. Direct link to the legislation included. Anyone who edits this to foetus is deliberately misleading the public."
2. 07:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Accurate wording directly from legislation."
3. 07:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "corrected inaccurate quoting of the legislation. the legislation says clearly and specifically "child" not foetus."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

07:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
07:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Reverting edit(s) by 49.186.44.94 (talk) to rev. 1252004406 by R0paire-wiki: Personal attacks towards another editor (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Strongly suspect the user to be the user recently blocked on this linked thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:49.195.79.115 reported by User:R0paire-wiki (Result: Already blocked one week). Making very similar edits and now engaging in personal attacks. R0paire-wiki (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours and Page protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Remsense reported by User:Avrand6 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [38][39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49] [50]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [51]

Comments:
I have tried to be civil throughout the entire process of disagreement, but the user in question seems to think he can bully his way into winning an edit war as a more experienced user. Now he falsely claims I have fabricated a source which is, in fact, a true source that was used to maintain the same point on other articles on this site. He has also been rude and condescending throughout the entire process, as I have tried to remain kind and understanding. I hope that an administrator can help resolve this disagreement peacefully and amicably if possible. AvRand (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That my null edit—which explicated the failed verification of a fabricated citation so that other editors would be made aware of the issue and judge the situation accordingly—is being cited here should more or less speak for itself. Remsense ‥ 论 12:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the text as you purport to, you would see it does support a connection between the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars. AvRand (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What page has the text that verifies your claims? A page number was not specified in your citation, because none was specified in the citation on Napoleonic Wars that you blindly copied. Remsense ‥ 论 12:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should try to make a case for myself and not make admins do all the investigation: I didn't violate 3RR, and I tried to minimize disruption by guiding OP to the talk pages with it specified that content policy issues needed to be worked out before they jumped to restore content again. They did so anyway, and were happy to disregard WP:V to do so. I hate pulling teeth like this, but if anyone has any advice for how I should better deal with situations without these, I would really appreciate it. I really hate using up my 3R "quota" across multiple pages and I hate having to treat it like a quota—but I don't know what else I'm meant to do other than hope someone else notices when someone fakes citations. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To provide context from my side: I was the one who created discussions on the talk pages, to meat out a consensus, and I went to two wikiprojects to ask for input from more neutral parties. He was content to ignore disagreements and revert edits with lines like "Nonsense" without providing support. Standard practice when there's a disagreement between editors is to leave the page as is while a discussion is had and a consensus reached. But he complained that the status quo page wasn't sourced, so I provided a source from a similar article. (A book I admittedly, haven't read in over six years/2018 when I was researching the War of 1812.) But that I assumed it would be a fair stopgap measure. Instead, he threatened to report me after addressing his concerns. He then kept on edit warring on the Sixth Coalition article. So I decided to warn him about edit warring on his talk page. When the user dismissed it all, I decided to submit this for administrative consideration. I apologize if i've formatted anything incorrectly, this is the first time in my ten years on wikipedia i've felt the need to go down this path. AvRand (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you admit you fabricated the citation, that should make it clear to you that you violated WP:BURDEN several times, and then tried to turn it around on me like I was being dishonest about what the book said and didn't say. There's really no defense for that, and the fact that you can't even admit you very clearly violated a non-negotiable site content policy multiple times and attempted to manipulate me and the admins in favor of some imagined "consensus" is itself extremely poor conduct. I'm not going to pretend my initial pair of less-than-helpful edit summaries gave you permission to do that. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, you're the only one trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes here. I was fully transparent with the citation. I don't fabricate anything. You can't bully users into submitting to your worldview through edit warring just because you're a more seasoned wikipedian. It's also worth noting he removed the Template AN3-notice page of content after he received the notice. AvRand (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mahan reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

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

Comments:
Short: User tries to impose his own edits without checking it correctly, which is also irrelevant to the personality.

First he started by putting these extra redundant information about the person Persianate[5][6], Sunni[7], which was copy pasted from Aq Qoyunlu. If you're not familiar, it's about the Aq Qoyunlu state being Persianate and Sunni Muslim, while the article Uzun Hasan mentions that he was the ruler of Turkoman Aq Qoyunlu state, which is logical since that's their main idendity, not being "Persianate, Sunni Muslim". It is irrelevant to Uzun Hasan. Can't verify source [7].

Source [5] is about Uzun Hasan, but doesn't explicitly state it's "Persianate", while source [6] tells that Aq Qoyunlu state was Persianate (nothing about Uzun Hasan). I know it is about the Aq Qoyunlu state, but the point is to keep it short. This user wants to include Uzun Hasan being Persianate, while he just copied stuff from Aq Qoyunlu article. No one is calling Mehmed II being the ruler of Sunni Muslim Ottoman Empire. There is nothing that indicates Uzun Hasan is Persianate and religion shouldn't be there either. But Turkoman should stay since Aq Qoyunlu is called White Sheep Turkomans in English historiography.

He also changes Persian name to first, instead of Azerbaijani, claiming Putting the official language first, ignoring the alphabetical order. So I don't see a WP:GF here.

The way he's editing (look at commas) shows also he's not quite serious. I also asked for page protection before, but nothing happened.

Beshogur (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar report about User:Beshogur. 4 times removing significant content with verifiable sources 1, 2, 3,4. He receive 3RR warning here. The user was asked to write his argument on the talk page instead of deleting the content, but he did not pay attention. Persianate (national/cultural identity), Sunni Muslim (religious identity) just like this person's tribal background (Turkoman) are the most important characteristics of this historical figure. Uzun Hassan was the king of a land called Iran/Persia and his official language was Persian [59], even his signature in the infobox is Persian language, so mentioning Azerbaijani language in the lead is irrelevant. Typing mistakes like commas or lack of language skill do not mean lack of seriousness, please be civil. -- Mahan (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mahan, WP:ONUS applies: The onus to obtain a consensus for inclusion is on you. You can start a discussion on the article's talk page (Talk:Uzun Hasan), invite Beshogur to it, convince Beshogur and others, and if you remain in disagreement, perhaps ask for a third opinion. You may not restore the disputed content until a consensus is found. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ToBeFree, I will request a third opinion on the talk page, but I disagree with the current version that you undid because it has caused the changing of some content other than the disputed issue (like royal titles and name meanings). Please check again. Thank you -- Mahan (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2024 (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 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