Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    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.

    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:Dustinscottc reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Both users and an IP blocked from page for a week)

    [edit]

    Page: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dustinscottc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit warring is a WP:1AM situation at an article Talk page, but I tried to explain the issue to the editor at my own Talk, here.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

    Comments:
    This editor has reverted 5 times already and shows no sign of stopping; the account is an WP:SPA and the editor is warring to obscure this on the article talk page that they are preoccupied with.

    They seem really determined to claim that they aren't an SPA, using the WP:SPATG "Editing timeline" section to claim the label doesn't count. But I see no other description for an account that hasn't edited since 2013 and, since reactivating recently, has only edited this one talk page outside of 3 edits earlier this year. SilverserenC 00:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “Users with a diversified edit history that indicates that the user became inactive for an extended period and then later re-established themselves with single-subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person may have been referred to Wikipedia by an outside source (see WP:MEATPUPPET), but this is not evidence that the account is an SPA.”
    I don’t see how my situation doesn’t fall squarely into this definition of what is not SPA.
    It seems pretty clear that the SPA label was applied (by an anonymous user) to try to discredit me during an ongoing discussion on a talk page. What is the proper recourse to resolve that? What is the protocol to prevent other editors from inappropriately applying tags to my own comments? Dustinscottc (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic of this filing is your edit-warring on that talk page. The question whether a handful of edits you made in 2009 and 2010 mean that you are not an WP:SPA in 2024-25 is, at best, to be discussed in another venue, as are the questions you are now asking about "recourse" for being "discredited". None of that would be a justification for making multiple reverts. Newimpartial (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You’ve made your point—now I’m asking a question. You reverted my changes without justification. I’m now asking how to address unjustified edits to my own comments in the future.
    For what it’s worth, if whether or not I am in fact SPA is irrelevant, why did you bring it up in your report?
    Please do not respond unless you have an answer to that question Dustinscottc (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question, I mentioned your SPA editing because it is relevant to whether you are here to build an encyclopaedia or not, which may affect how the community responds to your edit-warring behaviour.
    Also, templates following your comments are not considered edits to your own comments, and you should not seek to address them. Newimpartial (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is repeatedly reverting the deletion of an editor’s SPA tag and then reporting that editor for edit warring helpful to building an encyclopedia? Or would it have been a better use of everyone’s time to simply say to yourself, “Maybe whether this user is SPA isn’t so clear, so I’ll just drop it”? Dustinscottc (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As the person who tagged you as a SPA, in the last DECADE you have made (1) edit not about this topic. You should self revert and retag yourself. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve already cited the relevant guidance regarding returns from an extended absence. And for what it’s worth, I have made multiple other small fixes to articles without signing into my account. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oof, read WP:LOUTSOCK. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read it? WP:LOUTSOCK is only a problem when intended to deceive. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name another area where you are engaged? 107.115.5.100 (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the past few days? None. I’ve spent all of my limited Wikipedia time trying to resolve one sentence. Assuming that resolves, I will likely continue to make minor edits to topics related to law, the Latter-day Saint movement, and Arizona.
    SPA isn’t a designation for accounts that are presently focused on one thing—it’s for accounts that appear to exist for one purpose. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've spent a DECADE focused on one talk page, you are a single purpose account. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve spent a decade focused on a subject that didn’t exist four years ago? Dustinscottc (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you were not actually editing? 107.115.5.100 (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Asked and answered. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I can’t seem to find a way to reply directly to the report, I will have to place this comment here.
    Looking through other actions, declining any action appears to be the most consistent approach. I have not reverted anything since the warning. I had not realized that 3RR applied to talk pages. The reversions were in response to apparently concerted efforts (given the timing of each reversion by different users) to prevent me from removing the (I believe, inappropriately) imposed SPA tags.
    I would appreciate some guidance on how to object to the SBA tags in situations like this. Dustinscottc (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted. Thank you. Dustinscottc (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors blocked – for a period of a week from the page along with 107.115.5.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). My block of Dustin is with some regret; it is only because their reverts are not specifically allowed by WP:3RRNO and I do not feel comfortable invoking WP:IAR in this situation. I commend him for remaining civil and I understand why he did it. He is in my opinion entirely correct in pointing out that the language of WP:SPATG excludes his account from such tagging since their editing timeline shows edits to other articles in different areas, regardless of how long ago they were made (And to suggest that Dustin has edited nothing else "for the past decade" is meaningless and irrelevant, as COVID has only been around for a little over four years, so he couldn't possibly have edited anything COVID-related prior to that period).

    After the first such revert, the point (if we can say there was any) had been made and the tags should not have been restored. To continue to do so, especially recently as Dustin had not edited the talk page in any capacity, is schoolyard-level textbook harassment. To suggest that Dustin is a sock or meatpuppet purely on the basis of the long lacuna in their account history shows severe inability to assume good faith. To do this on the talk page of an article near the heart of a contentious topic area cannot go unsanctioned. If, indeed, there are any genuine concerns here, they should be taken to AN/I or SPI.

    And Silverseren you are better than that. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bishonen: I had no idea you were declining since I was writing the long explanation for my partial blocks below. If you would like to unblock go ahead. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will leave it to you, Daniel, as I'm actually asleep, and just going back to bed - I don't want to make any delicate decisions at this point. But did you notice Dustin hadn't reverted since being warned? That was the reason I declined. You have blocked them specifically for "Violation of the three-revert rule" per the block log. You may want to change the block reason (or else unblock, I dunno). Bishonen | tålk 05:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    As I wrote below, there had been four reverts, and while perhaps 3RRNO should allow an exception in this situation it presently does not. I don't feel that I'm in the best position at the moment to just declare a new exception. Daniel Case (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did I get a pblock? 107.115.5.100 (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In particular, the reason you blocked me was that I made a personal attack. I'm cautious not to attack people, could you provide a diff of the personal attack I used that caused you to block me? If not, would you unblock me yourself? 107.115.5.100 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the drop-down menu on the blocking page gives "personal attacks or harassment". I concede that you didn't engage in personal attacks, so I will put in a new entry that just says "harassmnent" Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Harassment? Would you provide diffs? I didn't harass anyone, even though I admit, I am an IP and that often means catching random blocks. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You restored the tags on Dustin's edits six hours after he had last reverted them, tags that as I have said elsewhere (and as he noted more than once) were added to every iteration of his signature on the page in direct contradiction of guidance that says his account should not be considered an SPA. You had also done this earlier. Both of these times you did not indicate in your edit summary that you were doing this, much less why. It really seems hard to conclude anything but that you and Newimpartial were trying to run Dustin off the talk page.

    And by the way, your edits from this IP only go back a couple of days, yet you talk as if you have considerable experience that goes back some time. Daniel Case (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No I didn't, another user readded them. I added them once was reverted and done. Please provide a diff of me readding them, or again, revert your block. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, my IP changes randomly. You can pay my internet service provider for a static IP if you want to. I will gladly take it. Please provide the diff of me readding those tags like you said happened though, because I'm pretty certain this is a hasty bad block, where you have confused my edit history with those involved in this report. I'm not mad, it's a confusing log and mistakes happen. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide the diff of me readding those tags like you said happened. Right here. Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    especially recently as Dustin had not edited the talk page in any capacity This is utter nonsense. They have made 60 edits to said talk page in the past 3 days. Prior to that, they had 5 edits earlier this year (2 of which were to this same talk page) and then no edits since 2013. Returning after a long break to only edit a single talk page is absolutely SPA behavior. It is not an accusation of sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, but a statement that the person on the account is now using it solely to push a single topic. In this case, a contentious political and scientific topic. Which is even more of a common SPA activity.
    Furthermore, your activation of ECP on the talk page fixes the problem anyways, so the Pblocks were unnecessary. ECP ensures that none of the new accounts (and some of the old ones with SPA activities like Dustin here) will be able to edit the page for the foreseeable future. Which is fine by me and sorely needed for that article. But it's funny, because it means the Pblock is pointless now. Until Dustin gets 400 more edits, at least.
    But, seriously, why are you using sockpuppetry as an argument whatsoever? No one here even made that claim or accusation in the first place. SilverserenC 05:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I was referring to ws what you may have been unaware of ... in fact, reading over your response, it's a certainty that you were. Dustin's last edit on the talk page was to revert the tagging. It remained unreverted by anyone involved here for six hours ... until 107.115 came in and did it, apparently taking advantage of Dustin's decision to back off on any further edits to essentially kick him when down. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not put the talk page under ECP ... we very rarely do that, even in PIA articles. A review of the protection logs will easily confirm this if you don't believe me. The language of the CTOPS notice on the talk page, like all such notices, specifically and explicitly refers to the restrictions that apply to the associated article "The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article ...." Perhaps we should find a way for the template to mention any restrictions that apply to the talk page. But that's not the issue here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A 5RR revert to the version you wanted is not "backing off", it is achieving the version you wanted without needing to make any further changes. You seem to be attributing certain beliefs on the part of 107.115's revert that isn't founded in actual evidence.
    I don't see how pointing out after Dustin admitted to editing while logged out that doing so on any related articles would be a violation of WP:LOUTSOCK. That is not accusing this current account of being a sockpuppet. Those are two different things. That was just a reminder to them that logged out editing when one does has an account should be avoided, for multiple reasons. Dustin prompted that mention because of the admission they made here on having such editing activity in between logged in times.
    Again, this seems to be you making massive assumptions that aren't represented by anyone's editing, not to mention openly ignoring very blatant SPA activities. SilverserenC 05:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The version you wanted"? Hello ... Earth to McFly ... Hello? We are, firstly, not talking about editorial content in an article. We are talking about an edit on a talk page. Specifically, we are talking about a pejorative tag repeatedly applied to an editor's edits. On the talk page for an article in a contentious topic area, where the banner at the top of the page reminds editors to be on their best behavior. This was not something readers were going to go to to look for information on the topic. And especially since I consider the constant restoration of the tags to have been harassment that was not legitimate editorial activity, I see this as the sort of thing that should not have been the subject of an edit war. If ever there was a stick that should have been dropped, it was this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was just a reminder to them that logged out editing when one does has an account should be avoided, for multiple reasons. I would believe that but for the context. Not all editing done while logged out necessarily falls under LOUTSOCK, even that done while knowingly logged out. LOUTSOCK is specific to " Editing under multiple IP addresses, or editing under both a named account and as an IP, when done deceptively or otherwise violating the principles of this policy" To be fair, I would not have made that admission if I were Dustin as there was no reason for him to unless he was trying to be scrupulously honest, and I wish for the sake of this discussion that he had not, but ... if he is not anonymously editing any of the articles he edits with his account, or any related to them, he is not technically violating policy. For 107.115 to have made the leap from that admission to an accusation that implies deceptive misuse is, well, a leap of failure to assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this seems to be you making massive assumptions that aren't represented by anyone's editing I disagree, to put it mildly, especially when that accusation is far truer of two of the blocked editors. As for the "SPA activities", neither you nor they ever explained why you do not think that Dustin's invocation of the language in WP:SPATG that directly addresses his situation ("Examples of users whose edits should not be labeled as being those of an SPA include the following: Users with a diversified edit history that indicates that the user became inactive for an extended period and then later re-established themselves with single-subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person may have been referred to Wikipedia by an outside source (see WP:MEATPUPPET), but this is not evidence that the account is an SPA.") is apposite. In fact, every time he brought that up you and/or the other two acted like it had gone completely over your heads. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop splitting up my singular comment with multiple comments of yours. I have compiled them again, in order.
    Are you seriously claiming the use of the SPA tag is itself pejorative? It is a commonly used tag in AfDs and RfCs in general, all across Wikipedia. It is routinely used to tag accounts that solely edit the article or discussion in question and in particular if they have been making excessive comments in that discussion (ie 50 comments in 3 days).
    Not all editing while logged out would violate LOUTSOCK, but do you really think an account that only edits a single talk page after returning would have edits entirely outside of that area when logged out? It's precisely an area of concern to have after such an admission of editing practices. There have been multiple IP address responders showing up on that talk page over the past two months, so it seems both relevant and prudent after such an admission to warn about such possible activity when logged in and out.
    Please, Daniel, explain how 10 edits from 2009-2013 counts as a "diversified edit history". Practically any long-term editor familiar with SPAs on Wikipedia would call that duck a duck and multiple people directly have above in this very section and elsewhere. SilverserenC 06:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop splitting up my singular comment with multiple comments of yours. I have compiled them again, in order. Are you seriously claiming the use of the SPA tag is itself pejorative? The real question is why you would even think that. Are you honestly asking us to suppose that WP:SPATG was written just as some meaningless exercise? Why would we write guidelines about when not to use it if we didn't want it to be an accusation cast around lightly? Yes, sometimes it's true ... I have blocked quite a few accounts as SPAs (but more on that later) But, to turn around a Latin phrase I commonly use, a widespread legitimate use in no way makes it impossible to use something abusively. I should have thought that it was easy to understand that by "pejorative", I meant in this context.

    Consider also that the {{alert/first}} template has the legitimate use of letting newer users, both IPs and registered accounts, know that their editing in contentious topic areas has drawn some attention, and that they should check themselves before they wreck themselves. It is broadly useful. But at the same time we warn editors against alerting someone about a contentious topic who has already been so advised, and doing that enough can be considered a blockable offense. We also have, of course, the "don't template the regulars" page.

    It is a commonly used tag in AfDs and RfCs in general, all across Wikipedia. As are the ones I've already mentioned. That widespread use does not mean they can't be misused or abused, as they were in this situation. It is routinely used to tag accounts that solely edit the article or discussion in question and in particular if they have been making excessive comments in that discussion (ie 50 comments in 3 days). In my experience, slightly longer than yours here I think, that is not so routine. Really, before the present episode, I hadn't seen it used on talk pages much. I actually saw it used much more often in the old days, most frequently in AfDs, often where it was likely (or known) that people had been solicited on other websites to go vote in the AfD.

    And think about just what level of use you're implying and what effect that would have on users. Don't many new editors come in and edit just one article getting their feet wet? Do we usually not just indulge them in this process? Would it not be sort of BITE-y if we "routinely" tagged them as SPAs?

    Also from my lengthy experience, the SPA tag has largely been used not just when an editor has been editing only one article or a small set of closely related ones, but when they seem to be doing so in the service of some agenda. As SPA notes, "many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest". Maybe that's what Dustin is? Other than his minority viewpoint in the talk discussions, are you prepared to identify some agenda or interest with an ulterior motive you believe Dustin to be acting on behalf of?

    And, really, we often used it when an editor was also being disruptive. In this case, could you identify some other way in which Dustin was being disruptive? (I know, he has been warned about bludgeoning the debate, but not to the level that it appeared people were ready to ask for a block).

    Basically, what interest of Wikipedia was served by repeatedly tagging his account as an SPA in sigs? In talk page discussions? As Dustin noted, he has nowhere near the edit count necessary to edit that article, so there's no threat of disruption to it, at least not from him. And he was outnumbered in that discussion and not likely to carry that day anyway. Just what was so urgent that you had to make sure anyone reading the talk page knew he was believed to be an SPA?

    Not all editing while logged out would violate LOUTSOCK, but do you really think an account that only edits a single talk page after returning would have edits entirely outside of that area when logged out? If you have diffs that you suspect of having been Dustin as an IP editing in support of his position, then now's the time to share them. Otherwise, your argument sounds paranoid. There have been multiple IP address responders showing up on that talk page over the past two months. If they have been disruptive, I think a request for semi-protecting that page, given that it's already the talk page for an article that's under indefinite ECP due to CTOPS status, would be looked upon favorably at RFPP. Targeting a specific autoconfirmed user doesn't seem like the best way to address that problem, if it is a problem.

    Please, Daniel, explain how 10 edits from 2009-2013 counts as a "diversified edit history". Hmm ... in English usage "diversified" doesn't have as much to do with the absolute number of items described, so much as how different they are from each other. Granted, with a low number, it's a little hard to make that call. But here we have 14 edits during that time period, and they include some edits to political subjects, some religious ones, one TV show, a town and a school. Those edits seem diverse to me.

    I would also note that since I blocked him from the article talk page, Dustin has gone and made an edit to Talk:Mesa, Arizona ... hardly the choice one would expect of some single-purpose edit warrior focused on the COVID lab-leak theory. Daniel Case (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to add, as a bemused watcher of that page: the SPA tag was added first to their !vote in an RfC. You can make a case that this was legitimate, because the purpose of the tag is to indicate to a closer of the discussion that the !vote was cast by someone who has not edited widely elsewhere and may or may not be canvassed to the discussion. It is up to the closer to decide what to do with that information. But it is informational. Once. Dustin went on to write a lot, and yes, they did get carried away, and warnings about bludgeoning were rightly given. But we have just noted that they have limited experience on Wikipedia, so to tag every single one of their comments looks pretty WP:BITEy from where I am sitting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:49.36.235.180 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: List of nicknames of prime ministers of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 49.36.235.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Narendra Modi */Again not a nickname just a term used by opposition to demean not by everyone as a nickname."
    2. 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "What do you consider a correct source according to you?"
    3. 17:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Narendra Modi */Then how can this a source of nickname it's just a opinion of someone for gaining votes and demeaning opposition party."
    4. Consecutive edits made from 17:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 17:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Correct and same type source as you have recently republished"
      2. 17:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    5. 17:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    6. 17:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Narendra Modi */Not a nickname just a disrespectful term used by some dirty politics doings politicians bad mouthing publicly to gain attention over their pity self career ."
    7. 17:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Narendra Modi */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on List of nicknames of prime ministers of India."
    2. 17:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
    3. 17:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* List of nicknames of prime ministers of India */ new section"
    4. 18:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* List of nicknames of prime ministers of India */"
    5. 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* List of nicknames of prime ministers of India */ discuss please"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 18:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* "Maun Mohan" */ new section"
    2. 18:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "/* "Maun Mohan" */ coment"

    Comments:

    I've warned, engaged, started talk discussion, and I'm burnt out. Need someone else to look so I don't engage in 3RR myself. ZimZalaBim talk 04:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.196.104.11 reported by User:Wowzers122 (Result: /23 blocked from both articles for a week)

    [edit]

    Page: 2024 United States presidential election in Kentucky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Letcher County, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 174.196.104.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [9] [10]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11] - Dec 31 "these are the correct results according to Dave Leips"
    2. [12] - Dec 31 "Per source of Dave Leips"
    3. [13] - Jan 1 "These are the correct results per Dave Leip’s. Don’t undo this edit again."
    4. [14] - Jan 1
    5. [15] - Jan 1 "these are the correct results per Dave Leip’s. Don’t undo this edit again."
    6. [16] - Jan 1 "per source of Dave Leip’s"
    7. [17] - Jan 1 "These are the correct results per source of Dave Leip’s"

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

    Comments:
    All the differences on both pages concern whether to use the numbers from a website called Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (which cites the Kentucky State Board of Elections as its data source) or the Official 2024 General Election Results provided by the Kentucky State Board of Elections. The number for "other" votes on the page before the edit warring was 126 for Letcher County (per election board), which the IP insists on changing to 146 (per Dave Leip).

    I should also note that @Mad Mismagius: reverted all but one and the current IP edits on these pages without warning the user or attempting to engage in talk page discussion. I made one revert and left a warning on the user's talk page, who later reverted my revert.

    Also, there are two other IPs (now dormant) that made identical edits on these pages with similar edit summaries. One on Dec 27 "Correct Letcher County votes" and another on Dec 29 "these are the correct results according to Dave Leips". Wowzers122 (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of a week 174.196.104.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) from articles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had to deal with this IP address as well. The issue seems to be that they are conflating "third party candidates" with write-in votes. Chalandray (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2804:3D5C:B300:7B0:540A:406B:F7AF:C17D reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: Blocked one week)

    [edit]

    Page: List of Squid Game characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2804:3D5C:B300:7B0:540A:406B:F7AF:C17D (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:

    1. 12:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 12:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.6)"
    3. 12:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.6)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    False. You did vandalize the same text multiple times using as excuse lack of sources (not anyone's fault you tried to edit a page without watching the respective show and made a fan-canon where the show's actitons never happened) when there are 0 sources on the entirety of the discussed character as the information used is from visual/audio information from the 4th episode. I asked you to stop in my IP talk page, in your talk page, and on the page's talk page, and you refused, instead you vandalized over and over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:3D5C:B300:7B0:540A:406B:F7AF:C17D (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.93.89.27 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: 1 week partial block for both parties)

    [edit]

    Page: Salim Halali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 174.93.89.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Source is about Bone."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Well, if the dispute is about sources, this peer-reviewed academic source should settle the matter."
      2. 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 18:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266885362 by M.Bitton (talk) - No need for the talk page. Just click on the link for Bône in this article."
    4. 16:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266617369 by M.Bitton (talk) - Be that as it may, it is now known as Annaba."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Salim Halali."
    2. 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    This edit partially reverts the biography to a previous state. And anyway, I blocked you for edit warring, not 3RR. PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does revert it to the stable and well sourced version (the one that actually makes sense, given that Annaba has been known as such for centuries). For the rest, no comment. M.Bitton (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Horsechestnut reported by User:CurryTime7-24 (Result: Protected)

    [edit]

    Page: Eagle Rock, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266922310 by CurryTime7-24 (talk)"
    2. 20:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266911668 by CurryTime7-24 I am in the process of deleting unnecessary text so that what remains is referenced, cited information, but can't complete this process if you keep on deleting my work before I have finished editing. Please give me time to complete my edits. Horsechestnut. Please do not delete this User talk:CurryTime7-24

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 21:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Eagle Rock, Los Angeles."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User has also been using the account Cjcooper to pursue this edit war. They have been warned on both accounts. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected – One week by User:Daniel Quinlan per a complaint at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hippo43, IP 2a01:4b00:b90c:6700:* reported by User:Mathnerd314159 (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: French mother sauces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hippo43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:6C91:81FE:34E1:80E0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:A9B8:61A6:B4BA:3525 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other IP's with the same prefix

    Previous version reverted to (Hippo43): Special:Diff/1261641655

    Previous version reverted to (IP): Special:Diff/1262083607

    Diffs of Hippo43's reverts:

    1. Special:Diff/1266765594
    2. Special:Diff/1263376343
    3. Special:Diff/1262689543
    4. Special:Diff/1262458566

    Diffs of IP's reverts:

    1. Special:Diff/1266834913 (probably same IP)
    2. Special:Diff/1263386233
    3. Special:Diff/1262743746
    4. Special:Diff/1262467272

    There are a few more, just look at the recent history which is nothing but reverts.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1262739350 (IP), Special:Diff/1237541954 (Hippo43, the IP warned them)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1261449232, discussion is still on talk at Talk:French_mother_sauces#Table_of_sauces

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to Hippo43's talk page: Special:Diff/1266963033

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to IP's talk page: Special:Diff/1266962827, Special:Diff/1266962969

    Comments:
    I made the table, so of course I would like to keep it in, but at this point neither the IP nor Hippo43 seems interested in a discussion at all. Please end this month-long edit war. :-( Mathnerd314159 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EclipseExpress reported by User:JlACEer (Result: Blocked from moving pages for 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Floorless Coaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "EclipseExpress moved page Floorless Coaster to Floorless Roller Coaster over redirect: The title was "Floorleess Roller Coaster" before it was changed to "Floorless Coaster". "

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    This is a new user who needs to be warned about moving pages without discussion. I need help restoring this. There seems to have been an intermediate move to a misspelled page, so I cannot restore it to the way it was. —JlACEer (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting a revert that explicitly pointed towards WP:RMUM is a problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GachaDog reported by User:64.32.125.197 (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Crunchyroll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: GachaDog (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. 17:06, 15 December 2024 "We don’t need an owners field to put bigger companies as the owner"
    2. 15:03, 25 December 2024
    3. 03:01, 28 December 2024
    4. 06:43, 31 December 2024
    5. 03:36, 3 January 2025 "Because you can’t use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent. Crunchy roll is a Joint venture of SPT and Aniplex"



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: December 2024

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

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

    Comments: Hello, here I have a user who still removing the infobox field from articles related to streaming services, media companies, conglomerates, etc., without reason, explicitly saying that it should not be used to indicate which top-level property if It is different from the parent company if all this is demonstrated with or without sources than if they actually own the same company. 64.32.125.197 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.68.24.171 reported by User:Migfab008 (Result: Blocked 3 months)

    [edit]

    Page: Khulna Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 76.68.24.171 (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]
    2. [21]
    3. [22]
    4. [23]


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

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

    Comments: This user keeps making disruptive edits in Khulna Division. Also, this IP address is violating WP:NPA by making personal attacks. Also violating block evasion as well. I warned the IP address to the talk page but did not respond (see WP:COMMUNICATION). Further information will be discussed on the ANI noticeboard. Migfab008 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1267104662"