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:Remsense reported by User:2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (Result: No violation)

    [edit]
    Enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page: Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Remsense (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]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

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

    Comments: Guilty as charged. None of my justifications matter, since 3RR doesn't care that IPs can just slip into the night instead of actually engaging in discussion on talk, leaving a highly visible article in a broken state for hours because my hands are tied to fix it. Can't ask anyone else to fix it because that's canvassing. I've been given a lot of wiggle room here over the past couple months, so if this earns me a week then so be it. It's extremely frustrating trying to protect the most important articles on the site, so maybe after this I should just give up. Remsense ‥ 论 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Remsense: Your accusation that I left a highly visible article in a broken state for hours is a completely baseless attack and should lengthen your block. Any administrator can read the article's diffs and confirm that at no point did I do such a thing. You're the one who deleted well-referenced material. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a related side note, it does not seem that the IP editor really cares to follow WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY in this instance. - Amigao (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Add to the above the following personal attack by Remsense on the article's talk page: [9]. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, when I notified Remsense with the appropriate user warning for this personal attack, they replied with get the hell off my page. This is a clear violation of WP:CIVILITY. Add it to the list. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to back up the complaint against Remsense here, as he also recently failed to assume good faith in edits I posted and attacked me personally as an editor. He then followed me and deleted another edit I had posted on an unrelated page afterward after I questioned his conduct on his talk page (which he then deleted.) I question whether his temperament is suitable to be a moderator on Wikipedia.
    MrJ567 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such thing as a moderator on Wikipedia, Remsense is a Normal Editor like you and not an Admin Either. Untamed1910 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I stand by my comments on his temperament and conduct regardless.
    MrJ567 (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not reasonable to take someone's actions in good faith when they lie, both straightforwardly and by omission, in their representation of said actions to others. Remsense ‥ 论 04:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one lied, I made what I felt was a minor edit. You then jumped to incorrect conclusions, insulted me after I criticized your uncivil and unprofessional conduct and then stocked my editing history to an unrelated article. Your conduct in my view continues to be as I described, and I continue to hold your temperament to be ill-suited for editing here. I ask that you show humility and engage in much needed introspection and improve yourself if you intend to continue posting here. MrJ567 (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not a "minor clean up", and you know it. I don't have to pretend I don't also know it, so don't bother. FWIW I have Indiana on my watchlist, but you're not entitled to your contribution history being immune from scrutiny when one instance belies the clear possibility of more. That's why it's there. Remsense ‥ 论 04:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, humility and introspection would serve you well, but I see no benefit in further interaction with you. Take care. MrJ567 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another way of stating this would be to say that you didn't follow the date format rules (why doesn't really matter), used misleading/uninformative edit summaries experienced editors have seen countless times before with BCE->BC and CE->AD transforms like 'Minor clean up' and 'Minor grammar cleanup', and Remsense left you an informative message to help you avoid repeating these kinds of errors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation Remsense smartly reverted his last revert, so 3RR has not been violated. However, this has not been Wikipedians at their best. The IP's observation that the cited source does not mention this has not been addressed; instead this edit war broke out over something entirely procedural which is not even policy. Further discussion should, I think, focus on the issue around the sourcing of "equitable" and whether that word should be cited in the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case: A violation did occur. That self-revert happened long after the violation was reported here at WP:AN3. You cannot exempt a user from punishment just because they self-reverted long after being reported to try to avoid said punishment. Furthermore, Remsense has committed the same violation before. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are not a punishment, but a way to end and prevent disruption. By self-reverting, they recognized they erred, meaning the risk of further disruption is low. If you wish to pursue a grievance against another user's alleged broad pattern of behavior, that's not done here, but at WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: @Daniel Case: That's what punishment does: Deterrence. By letting Remsense get away with this violation, you're breaking your own rules and encouraging similar behavior in the future.
    Do you have any personal connection with Remsense? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny this happened on Justice, given how frivolous and easily superseded this line of argumentation is. In cases as transparently explicable as this, unmediated claims of conspiracy truly are the last refuge of the scoundrel. Bless. Remsense ‥ 论 21:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Remsense: Calling a user a "scoundrel" after you've already made several personal attacks? Not wise. There's already a case building up against you. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a set phrase. I've indulged your repeated baiting of me more than enough at this point, so from now on please refrain from speaking to me unless you have something about site content you need to discuss. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Remsense: Calling a user a "scoundrel" is a personal attack. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: @Daniel Case: To clarify, are you saying that if someone self-reverts long after being reported for a violation, they are exempt from any kind of consequence? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given you have safely proven yourself a scholar of counting to 4, I recommend the remainder of Wikipedia:Edit warring to expand your horizons even further. Remsense ‥ 论 22:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This wasn't really helpful. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: Remsense has already made 3 personal attacks on this matter. Will you hold them accountable for that? Or will you let them get away with it, again? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you move on from this matter. WP:DROPTHESTICK. I've already told you how you can pursue a grievance if that's something you really want to do. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DROPTHESTICK Ah, the classic last retort of someone who has no rebuttal and knows they're in the wrong. By the way, "DROPTHESTICK" isn't policy. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't claim that it is. It's advice. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing to say beyond what I already said. If you have evidence that they have truly not recognized their errors, or have a long pattern of behavior that requires evaluation and action by the community, AN is the proper forum. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And no, I have no connection with this user. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have evidence that they have truly not recognized their errors Remsense has already been blocked twice before for edit warring: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Remsense. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they're exempt from 3RR as 3RRNO clearly exempts reverts of your own reverts for exactly the reason 331dot mentioned. If there are other policies they have violated that might lead to a block, no, they're not off that hook. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case: Which point of 3RRNO do you claim absolves Remsense of this violation? Be specific. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Daniel very clearly answered this already. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: No, he didn't. Point 1 of WP:3RRNO means reverting yourself doesn't add to the 3RR count, not that it subtracts from it. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the most common method of remedying a 3RR or 1RR violation, and is very common practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: So you admit a violation did occur. And "remedying" ≠ exempting. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WIKILAWYER. You really need to move on, this is becoming disruptive. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you want me to "move on" from pursuing fair enforcement of Wikipedia's policies? As an administrator, you should be careful with your words. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait until they find out that there is no policy definition of "revert". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: What's the point of your comment? Instead of being cryptic, why don't you state it outright? 19:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy pages are descriptive not proscriptive, and a lot of things are outright missing, e.g. the definition of what is forbidden by 3RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: Policy pages are... not proscriptive False. Read WP:3RR:
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.
    a lot of things are outright missing, e.g. the definition of what is forbidden by 3RR False. It's very clearly stated at WP:3RR. How is someone like you an administrator if you don't know this? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the policy definition of a revert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: WP:REV. Do I really need to take you on a tour of Wikipedia's policies and basic vocabulary? Aren't you an administrator? You should've already known this. 2605:8D80:5400:3F29:A8DC:F22C:78C3:6011 (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you said above, that's not a policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:MapReader reported by User:Notwally (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

    [edit]

    Page: 1917 (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265942060 by Notwally (talk) It's a long-standing descriptor that has been in the article since early 2020, not that long after the film was released, that has been discussed extensively at least twice. You challenge it by going to the talk page."
    2. 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265836072 by Notwally (talk) The page carries the full discussion from 2020 and 2023, which includes reference to the relevant guidelines and the necessary citations. You don’t just wade in a year later and change the article without resuming the talk."
    3. 21:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265821239 by Notwally (talk) There was no consensus for your removal, which referred to talk page discussions that didn’t exist, or at least weren’t contemporary"
    4. 14:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC) "Per RS, restoring the consensus position prior to the autumn edit"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 1917 (2019 film)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC) on Talk:1917 (2019 film) "/* Country? */ r"

    Comments:

    There is no consensus for this inclusion that this editor has restored 4 times in the past day, despite multiple prior talk page discussions. – notwally (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor has repeteadly endeavoured to force a change in an article that has twice been subject to lengthy prior discussion, ignoring all my requests for him to raise this on the talk page in the normal way. The diff he or she provides as an "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is four and a half years old, and not from the same account name, and doesn't represent any attempt to resolve the issue since it was a contribution to a discussion that both left the article unchanged and has been superseded by a longer more recent one, in 2023, that established consensus. Pitching up four years later and trying to force a change after a discussion in which you took part - under a different account name - simply because you disagree with the outcome and without resuming the conversation or taking any account of a lengthy further discussion in which this editor apparently did not take part, is disruptive editing.
    MapReader (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of one week from the article. This was a tough one to call. I thought seriously about declining it as all the discussion has been civil and it seems everyone is not only acting in good faith but reciprocally assuming it of the other parties (well, there is as of now only one on one side). Had I decided to decline, I would have done so on the basis of the edit being reverted to being rather old ... we have no policy guidance on how old that edit has to be; sometimes people here have cited year-old edits as the basis of their complaint. But at the same time I would commend MapReader's attention to WP:WEAKSILENCE: "... a lack of response to an edit does not necessarily imply community consent", contrary to what you suggest here.

    The underlying problem is, as IN notes here, is that this dispute falls neatly into a gap that FILMCOUNTRY fails to address, an issue as noted best resolved at the policy level. In the meantime, though, policy shortcomings cannot be allowed to justify edit wars, and in the meantime I read LOCALCONSENSUS as, by implication, deferring to the decision made here on the talk page.

    MapReader is acting in good faith when they point out the lack of clear guidance. All the same ... while they are correct again to note the deficiency of citing the 2020 discussion as a basis for consensus when the 2023 discussion exists, I read that 2023 discussion as, in the noted absence of clarity at the policy level, establishing a consensus for following FILMCOUNTRY and leaving the countries of production out of the lede entirely while noting them in the infobox. MapReader's good-faith skepticism about Lumiere's methodology notwithstanding, it does not give them the right to revert the current lede.

    Since, as it turned out, I have previously partially blocked MapReader before for similar conduct, and there has been an intervening sitewide block, I am doing it again, this time for longer. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the explanation. Just to be clear, the lead was stable between 2020 and late summer this year, 2024, on the basis of the 2020 and 2023 discussions. It was the other editor - who appears to have contributed briefly to the 2020 discussion but under a different username - who intervened to make a change late this summer, without revisiting the talk page at all, and after I restored the status quo, has attempted to force this through today without discussion. While I realise I made one revert too many, his/her gaming 3RR to force through an edit that runs contrary to previous discussion, and citing a four year old comment as evidence of being willing to talk about it, was having a laugh, IMHO. MapReader (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, this is best addressed at the policy level. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thesanas reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: Page full-protected for three days)

    [edit]

    Page: Pooja Hegde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Restoring the last version by User:Charliehdb"
    2. 07:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265915480 by CNMall41 (talk): WP:ONUS applies to those who adds contents. I only replaced with reliable sources. Please stop WP:EDITWAR here"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 06:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pooja Hegde."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "/* GA article */"

    Comments:

    Additional warring is here and here. User erased previous warning from their talk page here and was warned numerous times about getting consensus on the talk page. Has been reverted by three different editors at this point but user still does not seem to get it. CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I restored user:Charliehdb last edit [10]. What is the mistake in restoring other users edits? I am here to expand and make this article with reliable sources. Why are you removing my edits with reliable sources and making this article with unreliable sources? Thesanas (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure Charliehdb is a WP:MEAT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't surprise me but I am not sure I would get much reception at SPI at this point with as many filings I have done recently on Indian film related UPE, SOCKS, and MEAT.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They obviously do not care about WP:ONUS and likely UPE based on the continued edit war. I will let them continue to bludgeon and just roll back once they are blocked. Not worth the stress of trying to clean up the page when they don't seem to want to work within a collaborative community. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected in full for three days, since while the submitted diffs do not constitute a violation as there aren't enough, we clearly can't let this go on. With the allegations of socking and meating, this really should go to AN/I ... or SPI, CNMall's reservations notwithstanding. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stevencocoboy reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Declined)

    [edit]

    Page: United States men's national junior ice hockey team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* IIHF World Junior Championship */ Hide it first because WP:HOCKEY"
    2. 05:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Please stop the edit war, I want to edit and update result only"
    3. 05:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Why? we can update the result which the events are finish"
    4. 05:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* IIHF World Junior Championship */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 05:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Stevencocoboy "/* Respecting consensus of your fellow editors */ new section"

    Comments:

    Look at his person's talk page. They have been warned over and over and over. Just at US Figure Skating Template they must be 10x reverts. I didn't report that because he promised me on my talk page he would be better, but it hasn't stopped him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry it's because I don't know a consensus in WP:HOCKEY. I'm not American and my english is poor. I don't know we can't update a result and we need until the event was completed. Also I need using some times to translate what is talking about. After I translate it, I'm stopped edit in the page. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the thing... you have been warned of this many times on multiple subjects, and you've been editing here for 10 years now. I count that you have been warned 11x since September 2024... most of which you didn't answer on your talk page. In October you were told by an editor "Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges." On December 24 I told you to "Self-revert or I WILL report you, and you will get blocked" for 8 reverts of Template:U.S. Figure Skating Championships. The same day I told you "You are also dangerously close to being blocked for your edits at "U.S. Figure Skating Championships." Yesterday a third editor told you to stop vandalizing "United States men's national ice hockey team". You were told about edit warring and to read up on consensus by editors at WP:Hockey. And then again a warning for "United States men's national junior ice hockey team".
    This has gone on long enough. For your own good you need to be blocked a couple days to think about things and you really should be doing one edit and then move on to another topic. As soon as another editor reverts your new edit that should be a huge red ringing warning not to edit that page again until given the go-ahead by other editors on the talk page. This has to stop NOW before your privilege of editing here gets revoked. I was stern with you on your talk page about your 8 reverts, but you stopped and we came to a compromise, and I did not report you. Since then your talk page has been filled by five more minor and major warnings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can promise stop editing about ice hockey pages in recent days and calm down more because I've make a controversial. I'm sorry again. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined with leave to re-report if reported user breaks his promise above. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's good enough for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. Stevencocoboy (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Atsee reported by User:Dora the Axe-plorer (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266205860 by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) don't revert for no reason. If you disagree with my reasons for making an edit, you need to explain why."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 15:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC) to 15:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      1. 15:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266201041 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) first one doesn't need to be a footnote; second is not necessary; third is not relevant; fourth doesn't even make sense."
      2. 15:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266205410 by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) there is no citation where the fact tag has been placed. place the relevant citation there. that is all that needs doing."
    3. Consecutive edits made from 13:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC) to 13:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      1. 13:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "removed a lot of footnotes which are redundant. there is no need for a definition of a term when the term is linked."
      2. 13:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "doesn't need a dictionary link"
      3. 13:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Caldera collapse */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Your edits on Huaynaputina */ new section"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 15:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Footnotes */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Discussion at Talk:Huaynaputina#Footnotes, user repeatedly deleting footnotes without a valid reason on a Featured Article Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This user clearly wanted an edit war. Witness their utterly unhelpful edit summaries in their three reverts:
    There was no need to file this report. There is discussion on the talk page. The user evidently wanted an edit war, and evidently wanted to make a fuss about it. Atsee (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It took you multiple reverts before you actually even replied to the talk discussion, even after explaining in the FA and your talk pages, you continued to insinuate you are in the right. While the discussion was active, after Mike Christie's reply, you continued your reverts. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed the first revert didn't trigger the undo tag but the edit summary suggest a revert and subsequent changes before publishing. It would count to three reverts. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:36.228.143.128 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Declined)

    [edit]

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

    User being reported: 36.228.143.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 10:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 22:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 22:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 13:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Matriarchy."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    IP has persistently inserted extraordinary claims and violated the three-revert rule. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined as user has not edited since the last warning they got ten hours ago (of course, if they resume ...). I will leave a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1266640929"