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:Helper201 reported by User:WeaponizingArchitecture (Result:Stale)

    [edit]

    Page: Islamic Action Front (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and National Charter Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Helper201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]
    [2]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [3]
    2. [4]
    3. [5]
    4. [6]
    5. [7]
    6. [8]
    7. [9]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

    Comments:
    User:Helper201 has undone edits based on their personal definitions. Here was the article's revision before his first edit on this page; There had been consensus by many editors for years to keep Anti-Zionism in the ideology section of the infobox.. When we first tried to resolve the dispute via talk page, I asked them to move it to my talk page to discuss both, but they refused and continued to undo my edits. Alongside this, Helper has accused me of OR for adding back content initially added by other editors. I brought this to the Edit Warring board because this has been going on for 2 weeks now with no resolution. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 05:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined as stale since the user hasn't edited the article in almost three days and appears to be looking for other hills to die on. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:103.151.209.123 reported by User:Czello (Result: Page protected)

    [edit]

    Page: Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 103.151.209.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249268233 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    2. 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "I predicted 2024 Uk ge with 94% accuracy which was highest then I do not know what is the issue in my content than other polls"
    3. 00:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249260371 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
    4. 00:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249260005 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
    5. 00:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249259248 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
    6. 23:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249255714 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
    7. 23:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249255184 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
    8. 23:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249253715 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
    9. 23:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249252740 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
    10. 23:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249249222 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
    11. 23:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249248886 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
    12. 23:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249248453 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
    13. 22:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249247558 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
    14. 22:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249246677 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
    15. Consecutive edits made from 22:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC) to 22:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 22:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249237922 by FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk)"
      2. 22:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249237983 by FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk)"
    16. [12]

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13][14]

    Comments: Page protected for two weeks by Elli. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wi5hakeki reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Blocked indef as NOTHERE)

    [edit]

    User being reported: Wi5hakeki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Edit warring at two pages...

    Page 1: ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Previous version reverted to: [15]

    Diffs of the user's reverts: Removing the image File:England_2022_T20_World_Cup_champions.jpg and replacing it with the image File:ICC Men's T20 World Cup Trophy at COA - BugWarp (20) (cropped).jpg which is already in the page's lead section. Also, changing the format of champions table.

    1. [16]
    2. [17]
    3. [18]
    4. [19]

    Page 2: ICC Men's T20 World Cup Trophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Previous version reverted to: [20]

    Diffs of the user's reverts: Removing "ICC Men's" from the title in the infobox.

    1. [21]
    2. [22]
    3. [23]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

    Comments:
    Note: The user never gave any edit summaries. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:80.3.122.252 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked one month)

    [edit]

    Page: Bluebird K7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 80.3.122.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This article has been contentious for some time (see the IP talk: page) and there is one particular IP with a fixation on it and no other edits elsewhere than this and closely related articles. A new section has just been added, which is a comment on the legal aspects here from a solid legal academic source. While the case has been reported and sourced elsewhere, this is the only source going further into the legal aspects and meets WP:SECONDARY, just as we encourage.

    The IP editor disagrees and is now repeatedly removing it. For a seeming variety of reasons, of shrinking relevance to our policies. In particular, it's not true that all the information in this ref is adequately covered by the basic factual reporting of the BBC ref.

    1. "removed unnecessary and overly complex editing.The BBC article has been updated and all info is now corrected and available to read there."
    2. "Undid revision [removed assumptions and opinions because they are not required. All info is avaibke within citation links. This section is being made overlay complicated and it is not required when the corrected links, facts and references speak fir themselves."
    3. "paragraph contain ‘perhaps’ and perhapsim and therefore not in line with wiki rules. Already this article has multiple detailparticular audience."
    4. "Removed. A legal case study showing Bill Smith may have unwittingly sealed his own fate is an irrelevance to the final outcome of the civil litigation. It does him an injustice and isover complicating the end result."
    5. "Undid revision Richard Skene is an urekiabke source. He’s was not involved in the civil litigation and described Donald Campbell as ‘Sir’ Donald Campbell. That is factually incorrect."
    6. "The reference to the Richard Skene article is just silly. It's not a 'legal case study', it's a blogpost, offering a few opinions without any real knowledge of the case. It was written five years before the resolution of the case and four years before the museum even served papers. It is of virtually no relevance and certainly doesn't warrant a paragraph to itself"
    (Added since this EW opened)

    This is long-running and the IP editor has been warned for months, most recently here: User_talk:80.3.122.252#October_2024 Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your fixation with my edit is disturbing and disrespectful to say the least. I politely request for you to understand that this is not an edit war but factual evidence to show the irrelevant nature of the recently added paragraph.
    I 100% stand by the following as it is truthful and accurate.
    “The reference to the Richard Skene article is just silly. It's not a 'legal case study', it's a blogpost, offering a few opinions without any real knowledge of the case. It was written five years before the resolution of the case and four years before the museum even served papers. It is of virtually no relevance and certainly doesn't warrant a paragraph to itself" 80.3.122.252 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Factsoverfiction118 reported by User:Deathying (Result: Blocked indef)

    [edit]

    Page: John Rustad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Factsoverfiction118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Rustad&diff=prev&oldid=1249456139

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1249455955
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1249453557
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1249449506


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factsoverfiction118&oldid=1249458008

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Rustad#Opponent_opinions

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factsoverfiction118&oldid=1249457133

    Comments:

    Their account was created just to edit this article. I exceeded the 3 revert rule because the claim being edited in was untrue and contrary to BLP policy. They claim the article subject said that there was a conspiracy to "depopulate" the earth; their own source attributes this quote to another candidate, Chris Sankey. I suspect it is a sock puppet of User:PoliticalPoint who failed to get consensus to make a similar change and has also been aggressive with reverting.

    Blocked indefinitely If you believe that PP created this account (the timing does line up), take it to SPI; this isn't the place for this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SKINNYSODAQUEEN reported by User:DrKay (Result: Blocked one week)

    [edit]

    Page: Queen Camilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [27]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [28]
    2. [29]
    3. [30]
    4. [31]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32][33]

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]

    Comments:

    But how do you need consent for FACTS?... If it's as minute as DrKay says it is, why is he so obsessed with it and me? SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like, he can admit that I actually know more about this than him. Pfft. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2003:D3:FF39:641A:5E11:86EB:A88A:8085 reported by User:StefenTower (Result:Fully protected for 3 days)

    [edit]

    Page: Louisville, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2003:D3:FF39:641A:5E11:86EB:A88A:8085 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Unreferenced and non-notable"
    2. 19:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Unreferenced and non-notable"
    3. 19:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Unreferenced and non-notable"
    4. Previous to the above, the IP user did a number of edits in a group that constituted a revert

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Louisville, Kentucky."
    2. 18:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */ Reply"
    3. 19:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Louisville, Kentucky."
    4. 19:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Louisville, Kentucky."
    5. 19:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Louisville, Kentucky."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 10:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent removals of content */ new section"
    2. 10:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent removals of content */ revise"
    3. 19:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent removals of content */ minor update"
    4. 19:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent removals of content */ revise"

    Comments:

    User keeps removing longstanding content after my repeated requests to discuss on the article talk page. The user is ignoring my requests. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that I have been amenable to a number of their changes but have requested that the remaining be discussed. Also, I have agreed to placement of cite needed and other tags. They refuse to discuss. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'm not sure if this is pertinent, but similar edits to the article have been coming from other IPs: 93.216.98.126 and 2003:D3:FF39:64EF:BA24:B799:9067:D53C. All three are coming from Germany. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 20:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the look of it, the IP is removing unsourced content, and StefenTower keeps restoring the unsourced content. Both are edit warring, but the IP seems to be doing needed cleanup. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"...no? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have agreed to useful tagging for longstanding content. The key things here are 1) the IP editor is removing a lot of content without seeing the need to discuss when asked by a fellow editor to discuss; and 2) their reasons for removal are unclear to some degree (e.g. "non-notable" doesn't apply and I can't make sense of "undated"), thus my request for discussion. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 21:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their refusal to discuss does not in any way entitle you to edit-war, not in a situation like this where 3RRNO does not apply. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected in full for three days. Per above, and only because I'm being nice. Magnolia is absolutely right. If I didn't look at the users I would think the IP that only started editing today was the user with 20 years tenure and Stefen was the IP just daring us to block them. Stefen, I am really disappointed to see that an editor with almost as much time, and a similar six-figure edit count, as me seems to be of the opinion that it is perfectly fine to repeatedly restore unsourced content. Not once in your edit summaries did you acknowledge this; you just ... kept ... putting ... it back.

    This is the kind of established-Wikipedian arrogance that gives the whole project a bad name on the sort of websites that otherwise shouldn't have the right to be right. Per ONUS as quoted by Magnolia above, per the "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed at any time" warning that used to be prominent in the edit window, it was your responsibility to at least add sources when you reverted. It can never, by itself, be disruptive editing to remove unsourced material, no matter how brusque the edit summary is (uncivil is different), regardless of whether discussion takes place. If you'd restored the material with sourcing and the IP kept reverting on grounds of notability, then this would be a simple report to respond to.

    I do not feel comfortable at this moment giving you your first block in nearly 20 years. But neither am I going to hand you victory in an edit war it is not in the best interests of Wikipedia for you to win for edits that so clearly flout policy.

    So, I have fully protected the page for three days. That's enough time for you to get proper sourcing together, stage it on the talk page and, if the IP has not responded to any attempts on your part to discuss, put those sources in the article. Good luck. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I very much hear you and I should have checked myself. I came to the conclusion that after so many edits, this IP user (really, I believe one person using 3 IP addresses) was acting in an odd manner, seeming to come out of nowhere to chop up this article, and giving nebulous reasons beyond "unreferenced". I honestly don't have the wherewithal to find cites for all this in three days, but I think at least one is easily cited, and I'll just leave the rest gone to the winds until I can find cites (finding sources for many things is very time-consuming). What further concerns me is this result may give the IP user a kind of license to continue chopping up the article and refusing to discuss their edits. I don't have the availability to chase all this chopping and find cites, and I don't like putting all my editing time into one article that was stable for such a long time. I believe I have done good stewardship on this article for two decades, but this kind of disruptive editing makes it into an untenable effort, and I may have no choice but to set this article aside until this other user moves on or decides to discuss changes as a responsible Wikipedia editor should. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 22:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After pondering this more, I've decided to retire. When admins don't see a game-playing IP user for what they are, and let them disrupt stable articles for kicks, it's time to throw in the towel. 20 1/2 years, and I is done. Have fun with the dwindling pool of editors who can still hack it. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 07:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deathying reported by User:PoliticalPoint (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: Conservative Party of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Deathying (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [37]
    2. [38]
    3. [39]
    4. [40]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

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

    Comments:

    @Deathying: is persistently edit-warring in an attempt to remove any mention of the various conspiracy theories espoused by candidates of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, including its leader, to remove any mention of the various controversies that candidates of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, including its leader, have been involved in, and to remove any mention of far-right politics of the Conservative Party of British Columbia. All of this is despite multiple editors including @Dan Carkner:, @Moxy:, and @Other justin:, agreeing that all of this should be mentioned in the article and despite multiple reliable sources cited in support of the mentioning it all.

    @Deathying: also made a false allegation of sockpuppetry that was exposed as a lie at sockpuppet investigations, in order to to justify his persistent edit-warring against multiple editors.

    @Deathying: also has a hypothetical scenario infobox at the bottom of his sandbox page that shows the Conservative Party of British Columbia defeating the incumbent British Columbia New Democratic Party and the Green Party of British Columbia, ahead of the upcoming 2024 British Columbia general election, which suggests that this is a scenario that @Deathying: either desires or expects or both and may explain his persistent edit-warring to remove any and all mentions of the conspiracies, controversies, and far-right politics of the Conservative Party of British Columbia.

    --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I made an allegation against you with evidence that administrators didn't deem sufficient enough. It was not a lie, I presented all the evidence I could.
    You have refused to participate in good faith in the talk page, instead persisting by not changing your edits at all and forcing them through.
    I do not mind mentions of conspiracy theories on these pages. In fact, they existed before I got there. I care that you are misinterpreting the sources to promote your own political beliefs with your edits in particular.
    As for my sandbox, I create hypothetical election scenarios for a subreddit. I have created scenarios where other political parties have won. I do not disrupt editing on real pages by doing this. I also have no other way of getting practice with election infoboxes except through my sandbox.
    You are doing this in retaliation. We could have come to an agreement on the talk page as many numerous editors have done.
    Instead, you resort to reporting anyone who gets in your way. Deathying (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not just me, the editor @Ak-eater06 has accused you of edit warring/promoting an agenda through your edits and you responded by reporting him instead of working out a compromise. Talk:John Rustad Deathying (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Blob02 reported by User:ClaudineChionh (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: The Doctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Blob02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* The Time War */Put the supernatural back because it doesn't contain "unsourced original research" as previously claimed. The episodes mentioned literally are linked if you click on it to the Wikipedia article."
    2. 03:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* The Time War */This is all I'm going to add to the supernatural section, if it's not referenced properly, someone else can do it because it is a team effort. I'm not going to waste my time learning how use Wikipedia properly when I'm not going to do another edit after this one. I think that's fair and reasonable. regardless of citation it is atleast 90% done. I cannot see how it is written differently to anything else on this article. The episodes mentioned are real and the events describ..."
    3. 17:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* The Time War */Added back the supernatural section. The argument for deleting it doesn't hold up which was that a bi generation is a more substantial change. This isn't correct because the bi-generation isn't the only unique regeneration. 2 other regenerations are unusual for a Time Lord being the War Games and night of the Doctor. The supernatural is more of a shift as there hadn't been at all up to this point other than things being retconned to be like the toymaker. The supernatural is..."
    • There were also multiple restores of the material by Blob02 on earlier days too. No 3RR violation, but user has now restored their material six times in the last week. added by Meters (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "/* September 2024 */ @Blob02 "I don't like to pile on, but you have co..." [[[w:en:User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum|Factotum]]]"
    2. 02:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "discussion notice"
    3. 02:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)"Warning: Edit warring on The Doctor" A formal edit warring warning after which the user restored the material again. added by Meters (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 03:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who "/* Disruptive editing on The Doctor and The Fugitive Doctor */ @Blob02 "this edit summary is disappointing. "Tea..." [[[w:en:User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum|Factotum]]]"

    Comments:

    Discussions and warnings are spread across a few article and user talk pages which I have summarised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Disruptive editing on The Doctor and The Fugitive Doctor. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lakshmi Banerjee reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    [edit]

    Page: French language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 03:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC) to 03:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 03:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
      2. 03:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 18:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC) to 18:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 18:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
      2. 18:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
    4. 17:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 03:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on French language."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User persistently adding flags in Infobox on this and other pages despite MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and it being called to the editor's attention on their Talk page; now edit warring over it. General Ization Talk 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Romanthapa8848 reported by User:Arjayay (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

    [edit]

    Page: Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Romanthapa8848 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [43]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [44]
    2. [45]
    3. [46]
    4. [47]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [50]

    Comments:

    - Arjayay (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SamfromAus123 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Book of Enoch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: SamfromAus123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid vandalism. Added sources for unsourced claims in the article. Used Please see our policies WP:RS and Wikipedia:Citing sources"
    2. 23:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid vandalism. Added sources for unsourced claims already in the article."
    3. 22:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid vandalism. Source is provided in the text with the reference. I even paraphrased it for someone too lazy to check the source."
    4. 08:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Added references for Ezekiel, and Maccabees. Don't delete this or you risk getting blocked from wiki."
    5. 05:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid deletion of mine. Vandalism."
    6. 04:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249660717 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
    7. Consecutive edits made from 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC) to 04:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
      1. 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Add Maccabees reference about sword"
      2. 04:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Added references for the 70 shepherds judged and the 7 men"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 07:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Book of Enoch."
    2. 23:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Book of Enoch."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 22:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Book of Enoch "/* 10 weeks prophecy */ reply"

    Comments:

    Severely lacks WP:CIR. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My edits are in accordinace with Wikipedia:Competence is required. You lack Wikipedia:Competence is required. Most of the article is unsourced so I added reputable citations, and you delete it. Read Wikipedia:Banning policy. I suggest a ban for you. SamfromAus123 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hilarious! tgeorgescu (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Severely lacks WP:CIR. tgeorgescu

    [edit]

    tgeorgescu constantly vandalizing book of enoch wiki. deletes sources. leaves things with no sources. SamfromAus123 (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1249812501"