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:Pizzigs reported by User:LilAhok (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Doping in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pizzigs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:[1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 9 Aug, 20:48
2. 9 Aug, 20:50
3. 10 Aug, 06:41
4. 10 Aug, 09:31
5. 10 Aug, 11:48
6. 10 Aug, 20:45

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by 10 Aug 07:38

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [3]

Comments:
The user resorts to personal attacks WP:NOPA and labeling to justify their edit warring and neglect of the talk page. Also, uses personal labels to dismiss opposing views. WP:BATTLEGROUND - Engages in battlegound behavior. Comments for edits are very aggressive and combative.

User has demonstrated edit warring behavior on a different article:World Anti-Doping Agency 4 edits in less than 24 hours.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Doping in China, WADA, USADA, Doping in the United States for more context on the issues in question and the group of editors seeking to undermine the veracity and neutrality of these articles by pushing a one-sided version of the ongoing WADA vs USADA conflict. Pizzigs (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

[4] talk page that addresses users concerns, but refuses to engage in consensus building. Uses labels to dismiss talk page. Users edits are not neutral. User is copying and pasting same info across several articles. Nevertheless, 3 revert rule was violated. LilAhok (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Both Pizzigs and MingScribe1368 (talk · contribs) are Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. - Aoidh (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User:JSwift49 reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: Warned)

Page: Imane Khelif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: JSwift49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Second-round fight against Angela Carini */ Description of meeting taking place between Meloni and Bach with none of her opinions (opinions should still be added, waiting for talk)"
2. 20:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239675803 by M.Bitton (talk) One more and you'll break the three-revert rule."
3. 20:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239674326 by M.Bitton (talk) That post was about Meloni's comments, not that she called a meeting with Bach, which is more notable. The fight prompted a head of state to attempt to influence Olympic policy, not just angry complaints."
4. 20:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239673846 by M.Bitton (talk) The fight caused the head of state to meet the IOC President, that is noteworthy and not controversial. It's not a random celebrity with no stake"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Imane Khelif."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Meloni again */"

Comments:

Editor is edit warring to their preferred version, ignoring WP:ONUS (which has been explicitly pointed out to them in article talk) and WP:BLPRESTORE. Editor has now passed WP:3RR. TarnishedPath^talk 02:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Please note this thread at ANI.

I don't understand the point of warning JSwift49 at 02:40, 11 August 2024 and then 10 minutes later reporting them at 3RR/N - was that a "warning" or pointless paperwork? In the meantime, JSwift49 made no edit to Imane Khelif article or talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That they warned another editor "One more and you'll break the three-revert rule" in the edit summary of their third revert and then went on to piss all over 3RR themselves 4 hours later speaks for itself. Regardless, the WP:ANI thread existing does not preclude action here first. That's entirely up to the decision making of the reviewing admin. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it's up to the reviewing admin, who will likely take into account that there was another editor in the edit war, M.Bitton, who made 8 (eight) non-consecutive reverts in less than 24h (not counting a self-reverted revert), from 00:25, 10 August 2024 to 20:23, 10 August 2024‎. Why did you not report M.Bitton as well? The reviewing admin may also take into account that stonewalling and incivility are likely to have heated up the environment, as noted by multiple editors (e.g., here and here).

In my view, the differences between editors on Imane Khelif are so minor that this edit war seems incomprehensible. No one is trying to use that BLP to push a particular agenda, and editors seem to agree on the fundamentals of the case and argue over small details, almost irrelevant trivia (should we mention "public scrutiny over eligibility" alongside "misinformation"? should we mention Meloni's lobbying?). So I think this report should be enough to prevent further disruption without having to sanction anyone - the report could work as the "warning" that was missing - especially if the 1RR is installed, as requested at ANI. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reported @M.Bitton; I do additionally have concerns about sealioning in this case which I have outlined below.

I agree with @Gitz6666 in that these changes are rather trivial. I believe too low a threshold has been applied for editors challenging material in this article. As WP:Content removal policies say: My understanding from WP:Content removal essay was: "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus, unless:... The article is a biography of a living person, and the material is potentially harmful". And the BLP reversion exception deals with "contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced".

That being said, I acknowledge my earlier change to the lead should have sought consensus (have rectified the matter). I had thought that the word "scrutiny" was such a noncontroversial change given that the AP and several other major sources used it. JSwift49 13:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As WP:Content removal policies say.. there is no such policy (this is another another baseless claim of yours to justify your persistent violations of the WP:ONUS policy, in a WP:BLP article to boot. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarified ^ thanks for the catch! JSwift49 13:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Of note, the editor has recently edited at Special:Diff/1239760386, after being notified of this discussion. Notably their first edit after notification was not to remedy their breach of WP:3RR by self-reverting, but to start casting aspersion against another editor that they were edit warring against. TarnishedPath^talk 11:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I just now sat down to my computer to look at all this, as a matter of fact :) now I'd be happy to revert though someone else has already added their own content, and a majority of people in the talk currently support it. JSwift49 11:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you might have lost your chance at self-reverting then. That's a risk when you engage in 3RR violations. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that my fourth revert was different in that it addressed your concern (this was not doing the same thing four times) I had thought it was not on the same level. If not, I apologize. [5][6] JSwift49 13:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a very disingenuous apology (given the retaliatory report that you started below). M.Bitton (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49 please do yourself a favour and read WP:REVERT and note that a partial revert (however partial) counts as a revert. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've warned JSwift49 in the report they filed below.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Silvertiger1092 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Curry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Silvertiger1092 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC) to 00:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
   1. 23:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239698850 by Zefr (talk) Yes, i used one blog, and i also used one other website that was used in a citation on another wikipedia page. Please check the wikipedia page on "Mezban"."
   2. 00:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "/* South Asia */"
   3. 00:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "/* South Asia */"
2. 23:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239695352 by Coralwaves84 (talk) Please pick on other people articles which have no citation. My source is very reliable and at least i have a source."
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC) to 22:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
   1. 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239690046 by Zefr (talk) The source is super reliable and accurate, please check it for yourself."
   2. 22:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "/* South Asia */"
4. 21:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239686282 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC) to 21:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
   1. 21:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "/* South Asia */"
   2. 21:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "/* South Asia */"
6. 04:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Given citation is not accurate and does not match, plus information is not relevant with Bengali cuisine, as you are talking about U.K., not Bengal."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• User was warned and read the 3RR warning, but continued to change disputed text and inadeqaute sources. Zefr (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• talk page topic, but with no participation by user. Zefr (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Aoidh (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton reported by User:JSwift49 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Imane Khelif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: M.Bitton (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. 20:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
2. 20:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
3. 20:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
4. 20:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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

1. 20:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "One more and you'll break the three-revert rule."

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

1. 13:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments:
Full disclosure: I also reverted four times in the same place (I will say my fourth addition came later and also made changes vs. my last three, specifically removing the part objected to by the reverter in the Talk page.[7][8] I understand if that was not justified). Self-reversion is not possible now as someone has added content to the section.

Now, re. this user, my addition was relatively noncontroversial (a sentence describing a meeting between the PM of Italy and IOC President that occurred as a result of Khelif's fight), well-sourced and not a WP:UNDUE violation given its notability/proportionality. The editor's justification for the reversions was a talk page discussion (Talk:Imane_Khelif/Archive_1#More_RS_reporting_on_Italian_PM_comments) that occurred before the meeting even took place, and which was about the Italian PM's public opinion statements. Thus I do not believe it applied to my content, and I argued as much (see "Meloni again" [9] section).

Content removal policy guidance I read stated that "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus, unless:... The article is a biography of a living person, and the material is potentially harmful". [10] No arguments about the potential harm were ever raised by the user in Talk. Reversion four times clearly did not meet the BLP exception of "contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced". It was thus, I believe, unjustified in this case.

I had raised concerns about sealioning by this user and I believe they apply here. For example in the "Meloni again" [11] discussion they asked "What's that got to do with Khelif and why should the opinion of a politician (an unreliable source as far as athleticism is concerned) belong in her article?" four times, even after responses to the question by myself and another editor. [12][13][14][15]. (In one response I questioned this editor's good faith; [16]. It was a mistake on my part as I should have focused on policy, and I have struck it.)

Throughout the "2nd lead paragraph: "public scrutiny" vs. "misinformation"" discussion,[17] the user asked some variation of "what did the public scrutinize" five times in quick succession in the same thread: [18][19][20][21][22]. They also opposed the use of a term from five major reliable sources as "cherry picking". [23][24] JSwift49 13:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Content removal policy states that "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus, unless.. there is no such policy and the OP has been around long enough to know that and to avoid their repeated violations of the WP:ONUS policy, in a WP:BLP article to boot.

 Note: this is clearly retaliatory report (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:JSwift49_reported_by_User:TarnishedPath_(Result:_) for context). M.Bitton (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Good day this is not retaliatory, given that you have not filed anything against me. Will clarify re. content removal. JSwift49 13:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• As JSwift49 states, they too violated 3RR. They and M.Bitton are warned that if they continue to edit-war at the article, whether with this material or other material, they risk being blocked without notice. My advice: stay on the Talk page and away from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Works for me. I know this is about edit warring and not sealioning, but is this also the proper place to share concerns about sealioning, or where is? JSwift49 13:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Asking such questions while, at the same time, fully participating in an open ANI report about the subject doesn't look good. M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  @JSwift49: It's possible to sealion without edit warring and it's possible to edit war without sealioning so, no. @M.Bitton: The ANI discussion is a complaint about the subject of this report, true, but it's a complaint about you all the same. You've both been warned, any further reverts will probably result in blocks whether or not they're strictly 1RR/3RR violations, and there's no point to any further discussion here. City of Silver 16:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Żyrafał reported by User:Northern Moonlight (Result: )

Page: Julia Szeremeta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239843002 by Northern Moonlight (talk) might be even a thousandth, as long as it's following the rules. The information is irrelevant for the biography and can be checked easily by clicking on the link that is there specifically for that purpose. If that was a paper encyclopaedia, then this information would be relevant."
2. 22:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239842484 by Northern Moonlight (talk) that's what the link is for"
3. 13:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239599617 by Northern Moonlight (talk)"
4. 15:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238561509 by 95.160.21.185 (talk) not necessary, it’s just a list. She was an independent person, not a party member"
5. 15:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238562890 by 95.160.21.185 (talk) not valid, independents are not far right"
6. 15:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238564953 by 95.160.21.185 (talk) still not necessary, if someone wants to read about the party, they can click on the link"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ new section"

Comments: Two separate occasions of 3RR edit warring. There is also another diff (21:06, 8 August 2024) outside of the 24-hour window.

I was about to start a discussion on the talk page, but the user admitted that they are willing to do this “a thousandth” time so clearly they are not willing to stop.

• 3RR refers to more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Żyrafał hasn't gone over 3RR. PhilKnight (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • My apologies. I updated my comment. Northern Moonlight 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm only willing to keep the article clean. There is no reason for that irrelevant information to be there. The sole purpose of the link is so the reader can check what kind of party is that. If you don't agree with that then maybe remove all the links and write all the info in the article? I'm 100% sure that no one would even think of adding that info if she ran in the elections from any other list. Żyrafał (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Also do not spread lies. I clearly stated "it might be a thousandth, as long as it's following the rules". Is reverting a trolling or vandalism more than three times against the rules? Żyrafał (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism on English Wikipedia has a very specific definition, please see also WP:ATWV and the last paragraph of WP:IUC. Northern Moonlight 03:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean that your edits were vandalisms, sorry. Żyrafał (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The article subject is a political candidate representing a minor Polish party that is fairly unknown to the average English Wikipedia reader. There are sources explicitly linking her and the political position of her party (The Guardian, The Telegarph, The Polish Tribune). Northern Moonlight 02:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem are not citations, but the fact that the political stance of the party is irrelevant and can be easily checked by clicking on the link (which is the sole purpose of those link on Wikipedia). Even in the articles about politicians such things are not mentioned because there is a link for that. If it was any other party, no one would care about that and no one would add that information. Żyrafał (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, those were local elections where the party is much less relevant than the specific person. Żyrafał (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:John Bois reported by User:107.116.165.18 (Result: )

Page: Nauvoo Expositor
User being reported: John Bois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25] - my removal of content, with a summary explaining why, and a concurrent talk page conversation explaining

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]

1. [27]

1. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30] - they were aware of the talk page topic around the content removal, and actually removed my comments there.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31] [32]

Comments:
I apologize, but the template cut off some of my submission. After two reverts on the page, I warned JB. He asked editor Bahooka for urgent help - [33] - he had been warned for edit warring. Bahooka immediately picks up the stick and reverts, without noticing the talk page, or my edit summary. John Bois was aware of the existing talk page commentary about this, but removed it as well. Bahooka then templated me saying I hadn't explained my edit, oddly. I wasn't sure if this or ANI would be a better venue. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What he stated is an utter lie. I asked Bahooka for help after they undid the IP user's changes and after the IP user gave me a bogus warning for engaging in an 'editing war.' I also told the IP user he needs consensus to remove that much from the article, and yet he wasn’t able to provide it. This is also not to mention the fact that this edit was his second edit on this Wikipedia. This IP user is nothing but a troll. I request that his bogus warning be removed from my page and for him to be blocked from editing. John Bois (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You may ask @Bahooka, @Raladic, and @Chold that I have absolutely no intention of doing anything wrong, my only intention is that people like this IP user follow the rules of Wikipedia. John Bois (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

John Bois, you might want to rephrase that "What he stated is an utter lie." The IP wrote "John Bois was aware of the existing talk page commentary about this, but removed it as well." You did indeed remove the IP's post to the talk page thread without any explanation [34]. The IP informed you of this on your talk page. Meters (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The IP user removed a large section of the page without any consensus. I thought that wasn’t allowed. If it is allowed, I’ll happily apologize to the IP user and go on my way. John Bois (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

How does that excuse your inappropriately blanking the IP's talk page post?

Now being discussed at WP:ANI: [35] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As for the edit warring report, there is no 3RR violation here by John Bois. The material is under discussion on the talk page but the IP completely blanked the article section three times. it was restored three times, but only two of the supplied diffs were for edits by John Bois. The third was by user:Bahooka. Meters (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct, I'm reporting this not because it's a clear violation of 3RR, but because [36] before Bahooka's revert looks like WP:TAGTEAM from here. For what its worth, Bahooka doesn't seem like a random choice, in fact Bahooka has been involved in conversations about this source on this same page for over a decade - [37]. A convenient person to tag in. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I restored the blanked content at 2:36, preceding the request for help at 2:40. Bahooka (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

IP, it's getting difficult to WP:AGF in you here. You opened a 3RR report. You listed only 3 reverts, and by 2 different users. You admit that you know it's not a 3RR violation. It wouldn't be 3RR violation even if they had all been made by the same person. And since you made your edit three times, you are closer to edit warring than the person you reported. I pinged Bahooka because they were the one who made one of the edits you listed in your diff. Are you suggesting that I had some other motive with your A convenient person to tag in? And suggesting that there is tag teaming going here is really pushing it. It has no place in this report, and I suggest that you retract that as a personal attack. Meters (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've struck the relevant section of the text. After reading how things went down at ANI, I now realize it's unlikely that JB was trying to evade 3RR - he is just very early in his editing career. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not accusing of anything here, and I do apologize for my earlier comments, but I do have a slight concern. Your first edit was yesterday, and with the inference from 'He is just very early in his editing career,' I suspect you have two accounts, and if you do you are not behaving in good faith, as policy requires you to disclose both accounts. I have to admit I didn’t know what 'edit warring' and '3RR' were until last night. It is also correct that I am still in my early stages of learning how to edit. John Bois (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, not accusing you of anything, but I do find it irregular that you are editing this well on your first try. When I was trying to report you to the admins, I struggled with it, and the fact that you seem to know all the rules on your first day of editing also casts more doubt. I do believe you have a second account, (which should be looked into) but I’m not here to contest that. I’ll accept whatever my punishment is, and just remember next time to act in good faith toward new editors. We are still trying to get the hang of it, as you can see from the amount of questions I have asked experienced editors on my talk page. I believe having two accounts should be looked into. John Bois (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been editing as an IP for over ten years. IP assignments last from hours to weeks. Few people have access to static IPs these days. See WP:HUMAN. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, but why don’t you creat a account at this point to avoid the hassle? John Bois (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:HUMAN. For example, I've seen users on GitHub that immediately delete their account after they make a comment. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In the area where you reverted me, church members can be excommunicated for questioning the statements of church leaders. In some physical places, editing about certain topics could land someone in jail. Many want avoid sharing more (identifiable and potentially sellable) info with the WMF than is required. Many see having an account as beneficial, others see it as a potential liability. Different needs for different editors. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Hawkedin reported by User:Seasider53 (Result: Partially blocked for 72 hours)

Page: Ibrox Stadium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hawkedin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [45]

Comments:
I gave the user time to respond on the Ibrox Stadium talk page, but they have made 12 edits (at the time of writing) since the request for input was made. Seasider53 (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from making edits to Ibrox Stadium. For posterity's sake, the actual version reverted to can be found here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Arberiunumk reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page: Illyrian invasion of Epirus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arberiunumk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 18:02, 10 August 2024

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:22, 11 August 2024
2. 20:26, 11 August 2024
3. 20:29, 11 August 2024; 20:33, 11 August 2024; 20:34, 11 August 2024
4. 21:34, 11 August 2024
5. 00:53, 12 August 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: A {{uw-3rr}} warning template was posted in the talk page of User:Arberiunumk at 17:36, 11 August 2024. I should also add that User:Arberiunumk received numerous other warnings on 11 August, about this and other disputes; we know they read the warnings because they removed them from their talk page. Check the history of User_talk:Arberiunumk.

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

Comments: I should also add that User:Arberiunumk is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Arbe21_21; their case is currently awaiting administration and close (SPI case). Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Nougat10 reported by User:Bearian (Result: Warned)

Page: Korenevo, Korenevsky District, Kursk Oblast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nougat10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

first revert here, second revert here, and Third revert here. I was previously an admin, and have been an editor for 17 years. I rarely use this board, but I think this is becoming necessary. Bearian (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC) Due to editing issues, I accidentally placed the report here, not on the actual bottom. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Rather than reporting users for removing fabricated narratives, editors should check and recheck their input and not use unreliable sources for edits.

There is a trend for Russian villages being changed to Ukrainian villages by users without any evidence whatsoever.

I'm not an experienced Wikipedia inputer and only learnt of the edit warring policy today.

The guy who reported me has done exactly the same as me and changed my edits 3 times! Nougat10 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe I have added temporary protection from vandalism, could someone with more experience confirm that His R done this correctly Please. Nougat10 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

1) I posted once. I reverted twice. Then I stopped.

2) The editor has seven years’ experience on here, so to claim not to know about an essential policy is untenable. If you’re here for seven years, you should know about the policy.

3) I never wrote that this village was part of Ukraine. Check the diffs.

4) I originally tagged the source, Newsweek, as potentially untrustworthy, but removed it on second thought. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I may have been here since 2018 but that was my 2nd edit.

I'm not here to argue with you. My first edit was removed as it didn't have a source other than personal family history (nothing to do with Ukraine in 2018).

I deleted your addition as it was incorrect. If I had known about "talk" at the time I would have messaged you. A learning curve for me, I'm just a fat retired farmer in Herefordshire, England.

I don't like confrontation so I'll probably steer clear of editing for another 7 years😬 Nougat10 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Nougat10 is currently not allowed to edit about this topic (WP:GS/RUSUKR) and has now been informed about this restriction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:TVAroundtheWorld reported by User:Magical Golden Whip (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: 2003 in British television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Stop fucking saying unsourced"
2. 14:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Stop fucking saying unsourced"
3. 14:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Thomas made a comeback"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of programs broadcast by the Nick Jr. Channel."
2. 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been blocked for adding poorly unsourced information and back edit with edit warring. There also appears to be a past edit warring over the last few days including here [46]. In addition edit warring here [47]. Edits have been reverted in the past and keeps insisting on adding the information in, some include [48] and here [49]. In addition adding sear words to edit summaries and talk page [50] Magical Golden Whip (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Aoidh (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note Updated to a checkuser block. Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Ellis Island Rejects reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Breakdancing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ellis Island Rejects (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "edit made due to incomplete information missing contribution puerto ricans made to the creation of bboying"
2. 14:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "edited because description of the origin of breaking was inadequate and misleading.included reference."
3. 14:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Edit to an accurate description of the origin of said practice"
4. 14:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Edit to an accurate description of the origin of said practice"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Breakdancing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Penpengusa10 reported by User:CambrianCrab (Result: blocked from article and talk page, three months)

Page: Black people in Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Penpengusa10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52] 02:53 August 9
2. [53] 10:08 August 9
3. [54] 23:02 August 9
4. [55] 00:18 August 12
5. [56] 03:42 August 12
6. [57] 13:01 August 12
7. [58] 09:09 August 13

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [61]

Comments:
This is a spill-over of the Yasuke fiasco. I asked Drmies for help with this page on Friday (Aug 9) but it doesn't seem to have done much and it seems like it's crossed over into clear edit-warring at this point. CambrianCrab (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• OK by now this is pretty obvious. CambrianCrab, I want you to know that you also need to hold back: reticence is good. Fortunately for you, Gitz6666 and User:Toweli agree with you, and both also pointed at the RfC/consensus. The editor is P-blocked from the article AND from the talk page, because that combative attitude is uncollegial. If they want to protest this, I suggest they inquire about the talk page block first, which might give them an opportunity to prove they can be a productive editor in a collaborative environment. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)