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)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168
1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177	1178
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491	492
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:74.104.110.86 reported by User:CurryTime7-24 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

User being reported: 74.104.110.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1273102252 by CurryTime7-24 (talk)"
18:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1273102352 by CurryTime7-24 (talk)"
18:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Tributes, legacy, and popular culture */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Milton Berle."
18:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Billy Crystal."
18:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dick Ebersol."
18:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on John Belushi."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor was warned not to add unreferenced and trivial pop culture references in articles. Multiple warning, including for edit warring, were ignored. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't edited since you gave them their last warning (otherwise, I agree that this user has crossed the EW line without violating 3RR). Let's see if this situation holds. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked for a period of 31 hours by EvergreenFir for adding unsourced content. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Le Blue Dude reported by User:BangJan1999 (Result: Declined)

User being reported: Le Blue Dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1272910490 by Traumnovelle (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 19:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC) to 20:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 19:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Later shifts in tone */ This is a subject matter expert in line with Kleefeld. Finally got the quote we needed! Horray!"
2. 20:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Later shifts in tone */"
3. 20:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Later shifts in tone */"
01:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1272733631 by Hydronium Hydroxide (talk)"
00:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC) "It’s a direct quote. I’m not breaking the rules. We can debate this with a RFC or arbitration"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Things have settled down somewhat since earlier in the week, noting that the latest diff posted above is 4 minutes prior to Tiggerjay's warning, and LBD made no edits to the article in the 27 hours between that and this report. The horror that is Sinfest does look like it wanders the borders of five or six Wikipedia:Contentious topics, however. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Per above. Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2604:3D08:6E7D:2100:7563:6E02:139B:165 reported by User:Objective3000 (Result: 2604:3D08:6E7D:2100::/64 blocked 72 hours)

User being reported: 2604:3D08:6E7D:2100:7563:6E02:139B:165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"
01:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"
01:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"
01:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"
01:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"
01:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"
01:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Bishonen | tålk 20:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kiranpawar3210 reported by User:Dympies (Result: Blocked 48 hours, user alerted to CTOPS)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:28, 27 January 2025 "Undid revision 1272117316 by Ratnahastin (talk)"

18:13, 27 January 2025 "Undid revision 1272169548 by Ratnahastin (talk) "

22:19, 31 January 2025 "Undid revision 1273079605 by Ratnahastin (talk) This specific sentence is not found anywhere in the given reference"

00:16, 1 February 2025 "Undid revision 1273091307 by Dympies (talk) The exact sentence is not found in any source. Some sources do not even exist"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [4]

Comments:
Edit warring with multiple editors in order to glorify this king by either adding honorifics or censoring content he doesn't like. Dympies (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours User also alerted to CTOPS; will leave notice of same on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Isimmons1 reported by User:Danners430 (Result: No violation - contested, PBLOCK issued)

First addition: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

No discussion has taken place on the article talk page; however, the user has discussed the issue on User:Redrose64's talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [10]

Comments:
Long term edit warring - user has tried four times to add content which goes against established consensus to a page, and has been reverted by two users already - three now including myself. No attempt by the user to start a discussion until the post on Redrose's talk page. Danners430 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 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) 23:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not asking for the 3RR to be applied in this case - I’m asking for it to be reviewed as to the concerns around edit warring, which is clearly happening here. This is the edit warring noticeboard is it not? Danners430 (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do block people for making single reverts repeatedly without violating 3RR, but usually when they've done it a lot more than this. If this continues, take it back here, or to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: - I disagree. Saw the report at WT:UKT and I have partially blocked the editor in question from editing the list, a fairly mild sanction which stops the disruption in question. there is no evidence of any other disruption requiring a stronger sanction. The talk page remains open to him to present his case. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:109.76.175.107 reported by User:Lemonaka (Result: Declined)

User being reported: 109.76.175.107 (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:

19:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hurry Up Tomorrow."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Obviously edit-warring against different users. -Lemonaka 19:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined As I wrote yesterday, he appears to maybe have gotten the hint and hasn't edited the article in over 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2A00:20:7:6ADE:2158:8D15:DBCD:A40E reported by User:JollyJelly425 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

Comments:
Shortly after Lnydcs[18] was permanently blocked from persistently adding the unsourced disruptive edits and edit warring while refusing to engage in the talk, the new IP user 2A00:20:7:6ADE:2158:8D15:DBCD:A40E [19], likely Lnydcs's block evasion IP, is continuing the edit warring with the similar contentious and disruptive edits, violating WP:PROXYING. I think the page may need the protection given that the user is potentially keep changing the IP to evade the block and continue the edit warring.

Update: The likely same user is now using a new IP to continue the behaviours [20], which seems to be a VPN IP [21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JollyJelly425 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks The range 2A00:20:7:6ADE:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also blocked 2A02:6B67:D050:2A00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for the same time, Daniel Case (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Santasa99 reported by User:WikiEditHr (Result: No violation)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hrvatini%C4%87_noble_family&diff=prev&oldid=1272499357

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

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

Comments:

The user has displayed continuously irrational and unscientific behavior through edits, by using sources with no scientific basis or consensus. Having gone through the users post history, I have found that this has not been only an issue I noticed, but it is a pattern that has been pointed out to the user by several other people over the years.

No violation. The 4 reverts listed above are incorrect as some of the edits are consecutive. Santasa99 has made two reverts, one on January 31 and one on January 28. Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a short comment in case someone from ANI gets interested, as the link for this report is posted there: as Bbb23 correctly noticed, I reverted on 28 and 31 Jan, two reverts of replacement of sourced with unsourced content,.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ProtectorofHERUTAGE reported by User:Jfire (Result: Indeffed)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

03:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC) "False information removed, zellige is a safeguard registered art"
03:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC) "Fake information removed"
02:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC) "Zellige is a safeguard Moroccan heritage and it’s explicitly Moroccan. No other country should claim or lie on history on Wikipedia."
02:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC) "False information removed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

03:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Zellij."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

02:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC) on Zellij "Please use the talk page to explain why you think this sourced information should be removed."

Comments:

Yes, and again just now. These are his only edits. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also requested page protection for the article ([24]), if approved, that might solve the problem. Otherwise, I would push this further: this account is an obvious WP:NOTHERE. It's obviously related to the IP user(s) who has been making POV vandalism (pro-Morocco, anti-other North African countries) for several days: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. The username and this logged-out edit in response make it clear they're just here for one disruptive purpose, related to political disputes between Morocco and Algeria. R Prazeres (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely Acroterion (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:13enedict reported by User:Mellk (Result: Blocked one week)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

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: [35]

Comments:

SPA. Slow edit warring over ancestry. They were also warned about WP:RUSUKR but they do not seem to have paid attention to this. Mellk (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is also clearly the same person as they referred to the talk page discussion started by 13enedict in the edit summary, plus 13enedict logged back in to leave this message on my talk page 10 minutes after I reverted the IP. Mellk (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think this is not the first vexatious attack on me. I have consistently sought dialogue on the subject, following Wikipedia's policies. I have received a rather perplexing barrage of attacks which I don't think are merited. I am proposing well-sourced changes and no-one has expressed any coherent opposition to the content as far as I'm aware. People seem to want to avoid this content regardless of its veracity and relevance. A careful reading of Wikipedia:RUSUKR leads me to believe that it does not apply in this case, only a casual reading of the policy would support that conclusion. If this policy were to apply, then almost any subject however tangentially related would be subject to it. The behaviour of others is not in the spirit or, I fear, the rules of Wikipedia and are frequently discourteous. I believe a careful reading of the situation will demonstrate my vindication. 13enedict (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:151.251.252.85 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

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

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

Comments:

Very much a wp:nothere SPA. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.65.5.144 reported by User:Jfire (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

User being reported: 76.65.5.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

03:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "CEO is lying to people. I’m fixing it. As many times as it takes. Money laundering thieves. (allegedly)"
03:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "/* Partnerships */"
02:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "Correcting misinformation for the second time."
01:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "Correcting misinformation and removing references that do not relate to the organization. I removed references that cannot be corroborated or are misleading."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

03:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Orangutan Project."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

03:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC) on The Orangutan Project "Restored revision 1273591930 by ClueBot NG (talk): These changes need discussion and consensus. Use the talk page."

Comments:

Tendentious editing, including BLP violations. Jfire (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User: Summerfell1978 reported by User:Just10A (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [41] and [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [49]

Comments:

User is doing essentially the same conduct on both the Kevin Roberts and Project 2025 pages. Warring with multiple editors across the pages. Most of the explanations were done on the P2025 talk page, but the diff links/3RR violations I used were on the Roberts page, I can add the Project 2025 ones as well if need be. Reverted them twice on both pages, but am stopping now to prevent edit warring/3RR. Also, just being generally uncivil on the talk pages. Just10A (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Kevin Roberts page: A single sentence was added in the lead paragraph of the Kevin Roberts page. I find this information to be crucial, relevant, and significant, especially considering the real-time changes occurring rapidly in the United States. I provided citations. User reverted it without cause, without modification of text, and threatened me with a block.

Regarding Project 2025 page: I initially added in the lead paragraph that it is currently being implemented by President Trump. Another user reverted it and recommended that I add citations. I added citations, prominent ones such as from MSNBC, Politico, and USA Today. Another user reverted and recommended that I address this in the Talk page. Several users complimented my work and said I should work on adding the information first to the Implementation section before adding that sentence in the lead paragraph. User @Just10A became hostile and reverted my edits without reason. He has made zero attempts to "refine" my sentences as he recommended, and is instead deleting them without cause. I am a new user but I feel that I'm being bullied. Summerfell1978 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you feel bullied, that was never my intention. I merely asked you to draft and discuss on the talk page so that we could refine it instead of just forcing it in the main article,[50] but you refused. I don't want to comment anymore to muddy the waters, I'll let the admin sort this out. Just10A (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skinnedface reported by User:PARAKANYAA (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

Edit warring with multiple people to introduce version that has no consensus PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnnybgood999 reported by User:Allthefoxes (Result: Partially blocked)

User being reported: Johnnybgood999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "Rather than deleting entire sections, editors should aim for targeted, precise edits that align with Wikipedia’s content policies. Please discuss in talk page before deleting."
23:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1273767321 by Grayfell (talk) Please discuss this on the talk page. Only edit those messages that you believe do not meet the criteria, but do not delete the entire section (in fact, there is content prior to my edits that you also deleted)."
22:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "WP:PRESERVE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR - see talk page"
21:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "WP:WAR – see talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

23:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "/* Recent additions */ Reply"
Consecutive edits made from 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 23:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Antifeminism

Comments:

slowburning edit war - user continues to edit and war after warnings and unproductive talk page discussions. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, partially blocked from Antifeminism and Talk:Antifeminism, warned for overall pattern of conduct and potential topic ban. Acroterion (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User: 2601:404:D000:B915:6415:F05B:3466:AF1B reported by User:TDKR Chicago 101 (Result: )

User being reported: 2601:404:D000:B915:6415:F05B:3466:AF1B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2601:404:d000:b915:faef:f666:eba8:5265 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2601:404:d000:b915:bacf:9cae:c0a5:b205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2601:404:d000:b915:8951:55d3:6c83:506f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2601:404:d000:b915:95fe:45c7:d42:8bce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:11, 2 February 2025 by 2601:404:d000:b915:bacf:9cae:c0a5:b205
12:36, 3 February 2025 by 2601:404:d000:b915:8951:55d3:6c83:506f (already warned)
20:46, 3 February 2025 by 2601:404:d000:b915:faef:f666:eba8:5265 (already warned)
23:32, 3 February 2025 by 2601:404:d000:b915:6415:f05b:3466:af1b
23:35, 3 February 2025 by 2601:404:d000:b915:6415:f05b:3466:af1b
02:17, 4 February 2025 by 2601:404:d000:b915:95fe:45c7:d42:8bce

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

05:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC) I undid their edit of changing the infobox image without consensus. I added a note suggesting "Create a talk page discussion"
13:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC) Undid their edit again with the note: Once again, there was no issue with this image being on the infobox before and it does follow precedent with other deceased celebrities. ONCE again, discuss this in talk page and do not engage in an edit war
20:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC) User Freedoxm undid the edit again suggesting the unregistered IPs edit is not needed
23:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC) I once again undid the unregistered IP's edits with the note: Please stop engaging in this edit war. Please discuss your thoughts on the talk page
23:36, 3 February 2025 Once again undid the unregistered IPs edits.
11:40, 4 February 2025 Unregistered IP said "Just let the most recent picture be at the top, please" to which I reverted the edit and once again kindly asked them to create a talk page discussion

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Unregistered IPs, possibly the same user, have been continuously undoing edits without proper justification or disregards suggestions to start a talk page discussion. Two of the four unregistered IPs had been warned for undoing the infobox image, which had no issues before and follows precedent for some deceased celebrities in terms of using black and white images. Would it be possible to block these IP users or at the very least protect the page? Thank you. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Omar7575 reported by User:Tiggerjay (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Other pages exhibiting simil-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)ar behavior after warnings[reply]

[62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple attempts beyond warnings, including: diff diff diff diff

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [64]

Comments:
Attempted good faith conversations on talk page, a new user posting in contentious areas, with borderline WP:ARBPIA implications. Primarily trying to introduce unsourced lineage of people, which cannot be verified in reliable sources. Continued posting implicates WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and talk page replies convey WP:BIT. I reverted their content ~~three~~ four times, and they've re-added it ~~four~~ five times total, multiple edits after engaging on talk page discussions, which shows that they've decided that the rules do not apply to them. Updated to 5th time re-adding the content after being reverted four times. Now a bright line violation. TiggerJay (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiggerjay: It's not a bright-line violation as the 4 reverts did not occur in a 24-hour period. Nonetheless, I would have blocked the user it if it weren't for the fact that you too have been edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 - the only thing I've been doing is reverting their unsourced additions which appear to be vandalism and/or POVPUSH back to the most stable version of the article[65] [66] [67] [68]. With regards to other pages, with the exception of a single errant partial revert, all other pages have also been reverted to their stable versions. Last time I checked that was not a criteria of edit warring on my part. However I will agree that it looks like their most recent (4th revert) occurred within 31 hours, so I would agree with perhaps not bright-line. TiggerJay (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are not exempt under WP:3RRNO; your interpretation of what constitutes vandalism is incorrect.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The continued addition of an unsourced nationality, especially to the lead, violates not only MOS:NATIONALITY (not good), but also WP:BLP (double plus ungood). I've removed the content as a BLP violation, plus the related categories which run afoul of WP:BLPCAT. If they're restored, a block is in order.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: If you think that the user's edits are WP:BLP violations, the reversion of which is exempt under 3RRNO, you should really block the user indefinitely. AFAICT, that's all they've been doing on Wikipedia since they started editing a few days ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to be a toe-stepper, isn't Tuesday your swing dance lesson night? I gave them a final awarning and a CTOPs notice and am monitoring. Plus cleaning up the mess.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was canceled because of snow. They didn't want to rename it to slip dancing. I'm crushed (ice) and am trying to comfort myself by twirling in the living room to Strauss waltzes.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fdom5997 reported by User:Mazamadao (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rade_language&diff=prev&oldid=1273844739

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fdom5997&diff=prev&oldid=1273847447

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fdom5997&diff=prev&oldid=1273852474

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Where's "can also be heard as" and "may be heard as" in the source?. Thank you.

Comments:User talk:Fdom5997 repeatedly reverted my edits with no justification other than "it's my wording choice" or "I like to write it that way". They repeatedly failed to add inline citations and stop using subjective languages unwarranted by the sources they're refusing to cite properly. When all failed, they resorted to making this threat in the edit summary: Stop reverting and just concede. Keep this up and I will report you to ANI:Noticeboard, clearly demanding me to capitulate to their bad behavior. During our exchange to resolve the issue, they repeatedly misrepresented my argument, insisting that I was forcing them to "quote verbatim" the sources, even though I only asked them to stop using unfounded subjective language and cite sources properly.Mazamadao (talk) 07:55, 4 February 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