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)
351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360
361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368	369	370
Incidents (archives, search)
1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173
1174	1175	1176	1177	1178	1179	1180	1181	1182	1183
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483
484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491	492	493
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:NinosDg reported by User:User623921 (Result: No violation)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1
2
3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

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

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

Comments:
NinosDg has a history of having changed articles for POV liking it seems, see this with multiple warnings. --User623921 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2025 (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. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ortaq reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

Comments:

That's not even including the personal attacks [10] [11] [12], silly accusations of sockpuppetry [13] [14] [15] and very poor attempt at WP:GAMING [16] [17] [18] (basically accusing others of the violations they are doing). Back in November 2024 they were already warned to stop randomly throwing the word "vandalism" [19]. This should really be taken to WP:ANI, but I am very bit busy/tired, so I guess this will do. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bbb23! HistoryofIran (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:87.116.177.191 reported by User:Updating Edits (Result: Semi-protected one month)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

Comments:
Hello, specified unregistered user with IP address 87.116.177.191, 188.120.100.217, 188.120.100.138 is believed to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit and edit warring. The user is purposely vandalising the Wikipedia article of Belgrade and it's main photography and keeps reverting other users edits, particularly the ones who are changing the Belgrade's Main photography. Username PajaBG has opened a conversation on Talk page regarding the change of Belgrade's main photo, and supported my opinion that pictures are preferred not to be panoramic view of city and that Belgrade's waterfront is not the most prominent part of Belgrade and it's often connected with crime, corruption and other problematic views of that. There are other pictures and attractions to use, but whatever other users put, the anonymous IP user will revert it and comment "revert to stable version, stop edit war". The page was once restricted due to his reverts. If you could protect the page and investigate the problem, that would be great. Thank you for your help.

Semi-protected for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Consuela9890 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

User being reported: Consuela9890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282331982 by Soetermans (talk) Correct, but that was before I provided the source, which is understandable, I should've have provided here in the first place, but that doesn't take the fact that the nature of the edits are constructive non-controversial and most importantly, supported by sources or some known fact. You are quoting rules that doesn't take into consideration the context"
19:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282326689 by Remsense (talk) All of those edits are constructive non-controversial ones, therefore discussions are not needed, the only edits that were made was ortographic corrections and added some important info about the concept of sovereignty at the time, nothing controversial about that. What you are proposing goes well beyond the rules currently in place and is over zealous"
Consecutive edits made from 18:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC) to 19:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
1. 18:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282322235 by Teixant (talk) Wrong, the correct Portuguese spelled name is Samora not Zamora: https://digitarq.arquivos.pt/details?id=3908043"
2. 18:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 19:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC) ""
17:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Corrected misspelled name"
16:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps edit-warring, despite warnings. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by User:SarekOfVulcan for edit warring across multiple articles. Aoidh (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2605:8D80:480:7ED:B199:177F:CC49:ED41 reported by User:Lolzer3000 (Result: Rangeblocked)

User being reported: 2605:8D80:480:7ED:B199:177F:CC49:ED41 (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:

21:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Two IP's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2605:8D80:480:7ED:89BF:8352:44D5:41DB and this one have both been engaged in activities such as personal attacks and edit warring, I believe the two are closely related as they made reverts to my edits on the same article. This IP specially made unwarranted remarks and personal attacks on me after I nominated the above page for deletion. Lolzer3k 21:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't take the facts, so you go to the administrator board, good job buddy and happy 5th birthday 2605:8D80:480:7ED:B5DD:A63C:F6E3:D0E1 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know who this is; now checkuser rangeblocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:97.112.197.204 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked for 3 months)

User being reported: 97.112.197.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

13:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "It is not a redundant acronym. Try going to the talk page and explaining how I'm wrong. If you can't then you're tacitly admitting I'm right and you don't care about factual accuracy."
13:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "There are also 'sources' that say the earth is flat. DC comics is not a redundant acronym, period. Go to the talk page before reverting my edit and I'll explain it to you"
13:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "But it's NOT a redundant acronym. Jesus Christ, stop read and let it sink in. DC is the company. Comics are a product they sell. Therefore DC comics are the product 'comics' from the company 'DC'. Just go to the talk page before reverting again"
13:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "DC comics is STILL not a redundant acronym. 'Detective Comics' is the company name while 'comics' are a product they sell."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

13:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on RAS syndrome."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

13:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* DC comics is STILL not redundant. */ Reply"

Comments:

Thanks for your report. I also reported the IP at WP:AIV. WP:LTA WP:EDITWAR on RAS syndrome. Previous IPs: 97.112.198.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (1 week block in 2021), 198.70.2.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (multiple blocks, 1 year in 2023), 184.1.1.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Chrisahn (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also 97.112.208.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — Czello ^(music) 14:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked by Jauerback for 3 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lionel Cristiano reported by User:VictiniFan360 (Result: Declined)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VictiniFan360]

Comments:

--VictiniFan360 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not getting into a edit war, nor do I want to. Let’s work together to find a solution that respects Wikipedia’s guidelines and maintains a collaborative editing environment. Looking forward to your input. How right is it that you came here after this message? Leo^talk 15:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I see no effort to discuss the content dispute, which should take place on the article Talk page. Both of you are edit-warring; neither has violated 3RR. Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Remsense reported by IP for Edit Warring (Result: No violation)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dante_Alighieri&oldid=1282495007 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dante_Alighieri&oldid=1282494246 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dante_Alighieri&oldid=1282493783 Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Remsense&diff=prev&oldid=1282495252 Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dante_Alighieri&diff=prev&oldid=1282496505 2601:2C1:8500:7D50:458D:9DE2:A398:B63D (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please just re-read WP:3RR so we can avoid wasting any of the admins' time. Remsense ‥ 论 19:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw your 3RR violation and stop edit warring and I'll remove the complaint. 2601:2C1:8500:7D50:458D:9DE2:A398:B63D (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't care to know what WP:3RR actually says, then I can't help you with this. Remsense ‥ 论 19:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No violation IP, if you'd used the standard report and filled in the links as required, you'd have noticed that 3RR was not broken. Hammer it out on the talk page please.Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevin L Revie reported by User:Bedivere (Result: Revie p-blocked; now indef site-wide block)

User being reported: Kevin L Revie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Removed references accusing me of a crime"
18:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "This article incorrectly suggested that my game, Rubber Hose Rampage, violated copyright, which is 100% incorrect."
15:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* List */ This article incorrectly suggested that my game, Rubber Hose Rampage, violated copyright, which is 100% incorrect."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

16:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse."
19:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse."
19:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'd like to point out that this user is making legal threats by email. I was sent one that reads:

What are you doing?  Twice now you reverted my changes which change the following page so it accuses me of committing a crime:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_based_on_a_copyright-free_Mickey_Mouse

You can't publicly accuse somebody of committing a crime without any kind of evidence.  That is slander and that is a crime.

My name is Kevin Revie.  I am the owner of Revie Studios LLC, the company that makes Rubber Hose Rampage.  I have NOT infringed on ANY copyrights, nor have I been accused of infringing on any copyrights in court, so why does that page say that I did?

I will sue, if you force me to.

Bedivere (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevin L Revie, this is not how we handle disputes here. You are blocked indefinitely from editing that article directly; you may use the article talk page to discuss the matter--but you should do so in a courteous manner. As a side note, in one of your edit summaries you said, "This article incorrectly suggested that my game...etc". Our article does not do that: the EarlyGame article puts it up for question. You can take it up with them. As for the legal threat, Bedivere, that's interesting: if Revie would confirm they sent that email, I suppose we could block for WP:NLT--as it stands, the threat wasn't on Wikipedia. BusterD, weren't we discussing legal threats the other day? What do you think?
Finally, Bedivere, one more thing: why should I not block you? You never even explained in an edit summary what was wrong with the edit, not until the last one. You left warnings, sure, and that's your saving grace here, but I urge you to not bring yourself into a situation like this again. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, at first I just reverted as I thought it was vandalism, then checked out some details and turned out it was just a COI editor. Bedivere (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can confirm I sent that email. I sent it through Wikipedia's send email function. I would assume you would have a copy. Kevin L Revie (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome an Administrative review. it is ridiculous that I had to change the page three times before someone who knows what they are doing can look at the problem. Three times now, you have changed that page so that it publicly accuses me of committing a crime. There is no way Wikipedia would allow that. This page has been live for a year now. Nobody ever told me this was up and my contact information has always been publicly available.. That is slander, it never should have been allowed on this website. Kevin L Revie (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, sorry, I wasn't aware of protocol. All I want, is for that page not to accuse me of copyright infringement. Are you saying that isn't possible to do? I was made aware of the EarlyGame article and that Wikipedia page last night. I commented on the EarlyGame article this morning. If you view that page now, you can see my comment:

https://earlygame.com/news/gaming/this-cuphead-clone-uses-public-domain-micky-mouse-but-probably-violates-copyright-nonetheless Kevin L Revie (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin L Revie, "protocol"? Adults don't go around threatening other people with law suits. Again, "the page" does not accuse you of anything: it says "alleged use of still-copyrighted characters". Alleged. If I were you, I'd have a cold drink and step away, and then I would go back and argue, on the talk page, that "and character designs from Silly Symphony films" is sourced to the YouTube trailer for the game or whatever it is, and that's not acceptable: it needs a secondary source, and the claim is original research. Then I would ask for the last sentence to be removed because it is completely unverified and thus also original research. Finally, I would argue that EarlyGame is just another zine with no authority, whose editorial page claims that the "team diligently fact-checks information before publishing it to ensure accuracy", but that this is a hollow claim because no editorial team or standards are identified, and the person who wrote it does not seem to have any kind of established authority. And maybe I'd argue that non-notable games/works/whatever shouldn't be listed on Wikipedia in the first place, per convention, unless they have strong secondary sourcing, which this entry does not. Oh, there is a thing I would not do: rant on the EarlyGame page. Nothing good can come out of that. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is "alleged use of still-copyrighted characters", not accusing me of a crime? You are arguing semantics. This Bedivere person changed the page in question three times, so it accuses me of a crime. Or "alleges" I committed a crime, if you prefer.

I have every right to file a lawsuit, US law says: falsely alleging someone committed a crime, can constitute slander, which is a form of defamation, if it injures their reputation

That is exactly what is happening here. Every time I explained why I was making the change and the article was again changed to slander me. I don't want to file a lawsuit. I just want the Wikipedia page updated. Kevin L Revie (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation is not necessarily a crime ... in fact, it is usually a civil matter. And what you are being accused of here is really just a violation of Wikipedia policy on fair use, for which we have stricter standards than US copyright law (which we are allowed to do like any other website that hosts content ... in fact quite a few foreign-language Wikipedias permit no fair-use content whatsoever). Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just point out that the idiot who wrote the EarlyGame article is NOT a copyright lawyer? If anyone accuses anyone of anything on a website, you have to include it on Wikipedia? Is that how this site works? Kevin L Revie (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how Wikipedia works. That the writer is not a copyright lawyer is something you can bring up on the talk page. Not here. Here we are only discussing your behavior. If you want to do something positive here, you can apologize for that email, to the editor. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so, the problem is solved, they deleted me from that stupid fuckin' list. The gloves are off now, so fuck you! Asshole, that is my game and you let some random person repeat an obviously stupid rumor about my game. Please ban me, I want nothing to do with your stupid idiotic elitist Wikipedia system. How is that random person allowed to decide what is real about my game. That is MY fuckin' game, once I told them who I was, they should have shut the fuck up. Seriously, my game was the only one they talked shit about in that in entire fuckin' list. I tried to be cool. I just wanted to remove some obviously fake rumors. That was all I did. Fuck you dude, You could have easily solved the problem, but you choose to fight me Kevin L Revie (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I love to fight, try me, bitch Kevin L Revie (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given these comments and the confirmation that he sent the email containing legal threats, I think a p-block isn't enough. The user should be blocked fully and indef. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: @Drmies: — Chrisahn (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, block me bitch. I was always in the right. Go ahead and keep denying, what you know is true. Kevin L Revie (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs a nap and/or a snack. Indeffed EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:U was0 reported by User:Drmies (Result: Partial block)

Previous version reverted to: This was the version before the user got started: it was pretty stable, though another user, Ahmed al joami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), had made similar edits (though more amateurish); running CU on the editor I'm reporting wouldn't be a bad idea.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:U was0 is full of warnings, including the block notice by PhilKnight--yes, the user was blocked, and went right back to edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ja'alin tribe is full of discussion, where the user keeps repeating the same arguments and has nothing of substance to say, except to link one single book, which could never counter the half dozen or dozen academic sources cited in the article. The conflict is quite complex and I won't bore you with the details, and the editor is not completely wrong, but they are adopting a view not borne out by scholarship in the way they expressed it. Editors who have reverted them and/or discussed matters on the talk page include User:DervotNum4, User:Discospinster, User:Applodion--and me. If I weren't involved I'd have p-blocked them indefinitely already. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Blocked indefinitely from editing Ja'alin tribe. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:180.189.84.223 reported by User:Risedemise (Result: blocked for three months)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40] (In reference to a different page where similar behavior is occurring)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41] (Again a different page, but the IP in question does not appear to engage in Talk page discussions, regardless)

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

Comments:
They don't seem to have ever engaged in discussion (despite numerous warnings) and rarely include an edit summary. But are very diligent in watching, reverting and tweaking the handful of pages they are focused on, which also appears to include the following pages:

MIKTA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Working holiday visa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Uniting for Consensus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
List of army units called "guards" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)).

Risedemise (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bigboydav reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

22:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision of false and/or useless information. 1282518905 by Trailblazer101 (talk)"
22:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282518748 by Trailblazer101 (talk)"
22:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "removing false information"
22:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282516123 by MarioProtIV (talk)"
22:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "updated cast"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

22:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Avengers: Doomsday."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

21:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"
21:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"
22:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"
22:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:GuyFromEE reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "The actors being listed here for months is irrelevant. Also that was because the trades were the ONLY source of information. We now have an official source of information from the studio itself. So use THAT official source of information for the cast listing."
20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Stick to officially announced cast members only. Not ones quoted from 'reliable sources' only the officially announced cast."
20:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Reliable sources doesn't overall an official cast announcement."
20:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Trades are reliable sources not CONFIRMED sources. Wait until official confirmation before including them in the cast list."
20:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "It's not 'very obviously' names missing. Wait for official announcements before including them here."
20:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Removed cast members not included in official cast announcement."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

21:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"
21:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"
22:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"
22:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"

Comments:

Yet another editor who has been edit warring over this article's contents. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigboydav.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. I just wasn't sure whether an SPI was necessary and only noticed this editor's edits after reporting the preceding one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A CheckUser found the two users to be "unrelated". That doesn't prevent another admin from blocking GuyFromEE for edit-warring, but I'm not going to take action because I'm tired.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Des Vallee reported by User:Avatar317 (Result: )

Version before edit warring: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Slow edit warring, to push new content and location of content added 2025-03-16 by Des Vallee.

They did their first ever edits to the article as two content additions in one edit here [44]

I reverted PART of that edit: [45] - "Reverted recent addition: 1) bankrate.com is NOT a Reliable Source. 2) Cuts have been proposed to Social Security in almost every Republican administration; this is not LEAD WORTHY content. See WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." - IF these cuts actually happen, that might be leadworthy because it would be enduring"

Then the edit warring with given reasons being personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith rather than reasons pertaining to Wikipedia policies and any discussion of the specific edit(s).

Their edit here: [46] - "patent WP:BATTLEGROUNDING"

False claim that their version is stable: [47] - "This information is WP:STABLE version"

Repeated false claim: [48] - "readd stable content"

And most recently here: [49] - "See talk, reverting to stable version, still edit warring isn't good. If you want to do these changes get concensus first"

And failing to understand (or want to understand) WP:ONUS, which I mentioned twice on my edit summaries: [50] and [51] - "Yet again, per WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." - YOU added this content, I dispute it, and you have not achieved consensus for its inclusion."

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: From previous discussions with that editor they believe they are right about everything and have never conceded that they are wrong on anything, so a Talk page discussion with them ALONE is useless. That editor agreeing with themselves on Talk and having no other editors involved does not make consensus, and refusing to wait for other editors to contribute on Talk does not give them consensus to continue pushing their preferred addition into the article.

Here is an example of Des Vallee's "attempts at discussion" on the Talk page: Also why on earth was "This raised to 1,783 in 2024" removed.[52]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [53]

Comments:

Comment Want to state that user has not commented a single time on Talk:Social Security (United States), for the past 8 days insisting on reaching "consensus" while being content to continuously edit war. They were also blocked for battlegrounding a few days ago partially for this. I think this should be a case of WP:BOOMERANG. This user has also not stopped leveling personal attacks since being unblocked added by editor who LIED in the edit summary. They also have a long history of behavior like this. Des Vallee (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't understand how you think admitting to stonewalling the article, and assuming bad faith immediately was in any way a good idea discussion with them ALONE is useless. Des Vallee (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not why I was blocked. See the discussion on my Talk page for why I was blocked. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for battle grounding, and leveling personal attacks which you are still doing. Moreover assuming bad faith and refusing to even be involved in any sort of discussion is textbook disruptive editing. How on earth is anyone even supposed to do anything with a user who will refuse to engage with you no matter what you do? As an example bankrate.com which you keep insisting is unreliable is reliable has been pointed out you in the talk.

you did the same thing at Talk:Capital accumulation where when the discussion didn't do your way you called aspirations on editors, and you are still using personal attacks and grudges to dictate your editing. You also only found these edits (mentioned during the ANI), after being reverted on an article I made that you TNT'd (Food inflation) which you were later blocked for. You then followed my edits and are refusing to do anything except revert the page. Des Vallee (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:91.97.115.102, User:91.97.122.0 and User:31.150.189.46 reported by User:Chrisahn (Result: various blocks; page protected)

91.97.115.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
91.97.122.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
31.150.189.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
All of these are very likely block evasion by Yadomii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1282059594

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special: Diff/1282501272

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2025 Turkish protests#Lead sentence MOS:AVOIDBOLD

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

Comments:
The edit warring has been going on for three days (four if we include Yadomii's edits), and the latest IP is particularly disruptive. To reduce further disruption, we should block all three IPs for a couple of days. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like both EW (involving multiple IPs) and also LOUTSOCK of the named account, which had previously been blocked for EW. IPs blocked 3 days each, account blocked 1 week (also CIR-fail on their talkpage).

While doing this paperwork after setting the blocks, up popped:

178.142.189.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

to continue the behavior, so now also blocked 3 days.

The target page's 2-day semi-protection expired less than a day ago; reprotected for 2 weeks. DMacks (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another 178.142.189.x jumped into the game (at talkpage), so I expanded the 3-day block to that /24. DMacks (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kala7992 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: )

User being reported: Kala7992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282525833 by Adamstom.97 (talk) Jeff Sneider is not a reliable source, it literally said "better citation needed" since Sneider is not a good citation to use. Don't accuse me of edit warring again when you started this first."
23:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282525221 by Adamstom.97 (talk) You did not show any proof, Sneider has not been discussed anywhere in this article. At least pinpoint where this "consensus" was reached to back up your claim, because it doesn't show up anywhere"
23:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "You can't just say "this is confirmed by reliable sources" without actually providing any, and you started the edit war by undoing my edits. There is no consensus that Sneider is a reliable source anywhere here, that is literally your opnion and there are numerous instances where he gets rumors wrong."
23:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ I do not see any consensus on the talk page of this article on Jeff Sneider, as I stated already he is a scooper and not a reliable source whatsoever/"
23:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ Jeff Sneider is not a legitimate source, he is literally a scooper who spreads rumors, many of which turn out to be false. Until there is a legit citation Jeremy Renner shouldn't be on here"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

23:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Avengers: Doomsday."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

23:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Avengers: Doomsday "/* Please do NOT use Jeff Sneider/The InSneider as a source */ Reply"

Comments: Kala7922- I stopped editing on that article and conceded, why is a report against me necessary? Also I was not the one who started edit warring because by the user Adamstom.97 reverted my edits over and over again. I stopped editing on that article, and just want to be left alone. Once I saw the consensus on the talk page I stopped editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kala7992 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed likely violations of the WP:3RR, which is why I filed this report. It does not matter if someone stops editing an article soon after if the violation still occurred. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kala7992 broke 3RR like so many on the very, very high-profile page that became the intensely popular subject of insane levels editing yesterday. Barnt Toust 17:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ITSROYALTY reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59][60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [62]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 1 week from Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon Acroterion (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gencist101 reported by User:Bored kittycat (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [70]

Comments:
Appears to have been resolved, but feel free to review if necessary. Bored kittycat (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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