Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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

User:Mohammad Umar Ali reported by User:PadFoot2008 (Result: )

Page: Maratha Confederacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mohammad Umar Ali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

(First four within 24 hours, last three within 24 hours as well)

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

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

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

Comments:

• Please see WP:DRN filed yesterday. I make no comment on the discussion here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrator could indefinitely block me as all of this is mine fault only. I apologize to everyone. Mohammad Umar Ali

• Requesting Daniel Case, Bbb23 and RegentsPark to have a look at this case. PadFoot2008

I presume I'm being pinged because I declined a request to protect this page recently. Having reviewed the situation in more depth, I strongly suggest to MuA that he involve himself in the DRN that's been opened and for now drop this article like the hot rock he's done so much to make it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Since Mohammad Umar Ali has apologized above and there is an open DRN case, I think we can let this go (as long as MuA follows Daniel Case's "hot rock" suggestion above). RegentsPark (comment) 16:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I was frustrated so I apologized, I didn't meant it. This was my original comment [10] I removed it out of frustration as I told before. If you would have looked into details you would have known who was right here and whether consensus is even required in this specific scenario. I also learnt that providing reliable sources are less important for Wikipedia articles and a user needs to have consensus regarding adding sourced claims and unsourced claims and random statements of any other user are considered more reliable. Adding failed verification and Incomplete templates [11] also require consensus wow shocking! This is talk page of the article [12][13] and till now I don't know for what the consensus is required as everything has been well explained by me there by citing sources. Multiple users reverting my edit without any reason just shouting "talk page and consensus" by the way to which I replied each and every time with stating reliable sources doesn't matter but I get reported. It can easily be concluded that if multiple users are reverting my edit and I am reverting theirs (as talk page discussion is over as those users don't have any arguments left) I will be the one who will break 3RR even if I don't want and then I get reported, a good strategy isn't it? These many administrators didn't even notice this which surprised me. I faced multiple harassments by User:Rahio1234 (plz read the info here [14]) who just removed my content and kept quoting the same statement "Please provide WP:RS" doesn't even get warning. Also please close WP:DRN as there is nothing to discuss everything has already been discussed on the article's talk page. If I say Tomorrow is Monday and someone says no you are wrong The next day is Monday, I can't have a discussion on such issue. Lastly, I want any of the administrators to block either me or the user who reported me and disrupted the article. This is not a minor issue, this is a pretty serious one. If the administrators think that I really did any mistake block me please but don't just let the issue go. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Excelsiorsbanjo reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Page fully protected for a week)

Page: Spokane County, Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Excelsiorsbanjo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2024-05-25T15:41:20
2. 2024-05-24T14:40:49‎
3. 2024-05-24T02:29:32‎
4. 2024-05-23T02:59:49
5. 2024-05-22T06:02:36
6. 2024-05-17T03:01:14
7. 2024-02-26T14:37:18
8. 2024-02-22T21:29:44
9. 2024-02-16T05:23:14
10. 2024-02-09T20:58:07
11. 2024-01-30T08:35:07‎
12. 2024-01-10T05:46:44

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2024-05-24T15:46:52‎ (which they removed shortly thereafter with the edit summary delete noise) Masem had previously warned them of 3RR in 2019 as well, which they acknowledged).

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 2024-05-25T16:39:08

Comments:

• Excelsiorsbanjo has been very combative on the talk page, misunderstanding and misrepresenting what constitutes consensus, and generally being unwilling to reconsider their position and edit warring over a long period to enforce their preferred version of the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to add a little more context, in the diffs above they've reverted three different editors: myself, Leif One and an IP 2601:602:cc00:e7d0:ac64:af82:c4a4:bcb5. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Page protected In full for a week. As the reported user has suggested themselves, we need more formal consensus here on the question of whether the flag is still official or not. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case As the reported user has suggested themselves, we need more formal consensus here on the question of whether the flag is still official or not. What...? We have a secondary source that states the flag was "decommissioned", there are no sources since then stating the flag is current or in use. There was some detective work being done, but all of that is WP:OR and even if it panned out, isn't something we can use to make an edit here. I'm struggling to understand why protection was used here when there's a clear protracted edit war with Excelsiorsbanjo being the only person to constantly re-add the flag over the objections of multiple editors. This really needs to be a block. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I know this edit is 10 weeks old, but I have a lot of respect for that editor and I think there he states the point that does not appear to have been adequately addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

SounderBruce is not Excelsiorsbanjo. It's not clear to me that SounderBruce noticed the article Leif One linked to that stated the old flag had been decommissioned, it feels like that got lost amongst the original research that was going on in droves. The flag is already included later in the article, and if our reliable secondary sources say the flag is decommissioned, there's no need for it to be in the infobox. Certainly no consensus to include it has ever really existed beyond WP:WEAKSILENCE, so little has been proffered to justify a protracted edit war by one single editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case I just want to make sure I understand this correctly, so an editor can engage in a protracted edit war for months constituting 12 reverts against three other unique editors, and the behavior is addressed by protecting the article and stating As the reported user has suggested themselves, we need more formal consensus here on the question of whether the flag is still official or not.? The "reported user" hasn't suggested that as far as I can tell (beyond bludgeoning the discussion with the claim of a "consensus" that appears to consist of themselves and the uploader who hasn't opined whatsoever in the discussion nor edited the article since adding the image), meanwhile no less than four editors have either rejected the edit this editor is reverting to on the talk page or said they need more sourcing to validate that it is correct. WP:ONUS is unambiguous on this point: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. We don't engage in discussion with edit warriors who to date have presented zero sources (Excelsiorsbanjo tried to wave away the discussion initially by stating [t]he local newspaper has plenty on it) and simply tried to bully their way through the conversation.

Proecting the page is rewarding bad behavior and punishing the good faith discussion that took place on the talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The "good faith discussion" on the talk page never once surfaced this much-discussed newspaper report that the flag had been decommissioned. Without that I can't see any basis for removing the flag.

I chose full protection, in the hope that a consensus could be reached if more editors got involved, because the only other option IMO would have to block both EB and you at least from the page for some time because you were both edit warring. Since you have been contributing to Wikipedia almost as long as I have without ever getting blocked, and are a valued member of the community, I thought you might appreciate this.

I see now that judgement was a mistake. So, I will offer you and Excelsiorbanjo a compromise: if you both consent to being blocked from the article and the talk page for a month, I will lift the protection and let other editors deal with the issue. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case The "good faith discussion" on the talk page never once surfaced this much-discussed newspaper report that the flag had been decommissioned. Without that I can't see any basis for removing the flag. I guess this early reply in January is just my imagination?

you were both edit warring My brother in Christ, in the span of seven days I reverted four times. Excelsiorsbanjo reverted six times (against two different editors). I get that invoking WP:BOOMERANG is fun and all, but I warned Excelsiorsbanjo (prior to realizing they'd already been warned five years ago), reverted one final time, and came here after it became clear this was not going to stop. I've provided reasons and sources for my statements, while Excelsiorsbanjo has just tried to wave away any argument against inclusion and remained consistent in claiming that just their side (which *counts on fingers* is one person, Excelsiorsbanjo) has somehow achieved consensus... I've contributed significantly to this project over nearly twenty years. Excelsiorsbanjo has made less than 300 edits and appears to have spent the last five years learning how to not collaborate or understand how this project works. We are not the same.

In the meantime I can press the undo button, it's no big deal. If you can read this in that discussion and take away that Excelsiorsbanjo is somehow a shining example of an editor or even equal to me in any way, then you're high. Only one of us threatened to revert without end here, and it wasn't me. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I figured you'd invoke this old brief. It says "commissioners have decided to decommission that version". That only proves that they, at that time, intended to. It does not prove that they actually held the vote that that language suggests would be necessary, and the fact that no one seems to have yet found a record that such a vote was held means we cannot say with certainty that the flag was decommissioned (especially given that it seems, also, that the promised contest for a new flag design was never held, either). To claim those words as incontrovertible proof that the flag was decommissioned is writing a check they can't possibly cash.

It would be like me saying I had decided to block you for edit warring, but without anything in the block log proving that I did. That could not be taken to mean I had blocked you.

Fully protecting a page is never, repeat never, any reflection or judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the version protected. It is a message to the editors involved that they need to cool this down and discuss as they have failed at maintaining the status quo. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case That only proves that they, at that time, intended to. The text says decided to. It doesn't say intended to, planned to or some variation of that. decided is the simple past and past participle of decide. My understanding is that prior to that flag, the county didn't have any flag whatsoever, so it stands to reason that "no flag" is a possibility. Usually we defer to secondary sources, especially in situations like this where no other sources have been provided to refute the "decommissioned" status. It's kind of baffling to see you wanting something official when we typically avoid official records (just look at how biographies handle birthdates, or how we discourage using press releases for announcements over secondary source coverage of those topics, etc). Regardless, making assumptions about whether they actually decommissioned it or not is original research. You're supplanting what a reliable secondary source says with what you think they meant instead of taking the words plainly. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Дејан2021 reported by User:DerbyCountyinNZ (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Oldest people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Дејан2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Already reverted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oldest_people&diff=1225582570&oldid=1225385321

User was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. On expiration of block they resumed the edit war. They were then blocked for 1 week. That expired a couple of days ago. They have again resumed the edit war.

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

Comments:

That is unfounded and there is no reason to delete that case. I MENTIONED THE SOURCE. That's the violation of Wiki rules, one person keeps canceling my edits for NO reason. For no good reason, the user "Wwew345t" has undone my edits. I did not continue the war with changes and I ask that the issue be resolved.

Additional links:

1) my edit, I cited the source and correctly added the person to the list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oldest_people&diff=prev&oldid=1225582570&title=Oldest_people&diffonly=1

2) an edit by "user: Wwew345t" who undid my edit a few hours later without any reason: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oldest_people&diff=prev&oldid=1225628665&title=Oldest_people&diffonly=1

He invents reasons and imposes falsehoods, there is no problem with the man's age, his age is validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research (Gerontology Research Group), he claims that he should be deleted, because his age was not verified by a profit non-scientific company LongeviQuest (LQ), this kind of behavior and humiliation of a scientific institution is unacceptable, therefore, his age is validated by the GRG, that is enough, it is not the job of LQ fans to express views about the reliability of GRG, in the Wiki rules nowhere it says that GRG is an unreliable source, that is all incorrect, GRG has been used as a primary source for decades without any problems. Дејан2021 (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Moxy reported by User:Struct (Result: Reporter indefinitely blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]

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: [24]

Comments:
This user is harassing me by repeatedly reverting valid edits with no explanation Struct (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Reporter indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you... now we can all move on to something more productive. Moxy🍁 01:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:FeldmarschallGneisenau reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: 1989 Polish parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was one of two editors that breached 3RR on this article yesterday, but unlike the other, FeldmarschallGneisenau has continued reverting today (shortly after the 24 hour period following their previous edits expired) despite being strongly advised to stop. Number 57 01:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

They are still making reverts, with this edit being in part a repeat of the 22:31, 25 May 2024 one. Number 57 02:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:50, 23 May 2024
2. 19:18, 24 May 2024
3. 20:40, 24 May 2024
4. 21:23, 24 May 2024
5. 21:27, 24 May 2024
6. 22:31, 25 May 2024
7. 22:37, 25 May 2024

Comments:
Elections isn't a word in the English language unless there are different types of elections happening on the same day, or happening in different states of a federal country. A parliamentary election in a unitary state is only one election. Calling it "elections" is bad grammar.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Waterlover3 reported by User:Loafiewa (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: CZ Scorpion Evo 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Waterlover3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225753328 by 84.229.97.181 (talk) they dont only have 3 thats just the number of confirmed captures of the gun there could be more but since this site doesnt take hamas statements as factual we had to put it as confirmed 3 and no one brang up egypt. shatayet is a special operation force in the navy doesnt mean it cant be suited for such operations"
2. 11:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225737732 by Loafiewa (talk) hamas confirmed their operation with the picture of the 3 CZ scorpion EVO 3 in their tunnels"
3. 11:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225737160 by Scelodrama (talk) if it was published by major news organizations its as good as true stop coping"
4. 09:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "i didnt site hamas i sited al jazeera and MSN"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on CZ Scorpion Evo 3."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 reverts by this user, which have continued since being warned about 3RR, plus two by the account User:Lemandros ([25] [26]), who denies sockpuppetry, but it certainly fits all the signs of a WP:SLEEPER being used for that purpose. The edit also fails WP:V, as the Scorpion isn't mentioned by name in either of the cited sources. Loafiewa (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

like you are any better! you have 3 reverts on my edit on said article Waterlover3 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:2001:999:588:4a43:473b:d28b:b4bc:5341 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: /64 blocked for 31 hours)

Page: List of states with nuclear weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:999:588:4a43:473b:d28b:b4bc:5341 (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]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

Comments:

Removal of sources replacement with unsoured content. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of 31 hours by Izno, extended to the /64. Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:George Awad 1 reported by User:Wikibear47 (Result: Already blocked for 31 hours)

Page: List of countries by GDP (nominal) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: George Awad 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 17:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC) to 16:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 16:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.5)"
2. 17:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Economy of Pakistan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by George Awad 1 (talk): Unclear"

Comments:

Evidently persistent vandalism, edit warring and disruptive editing. Wikibear47 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of 31 hours by Izno Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:46.69.215.187 reported by User:Aloha27 (Result: No violation )

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danial Afzal Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 46.69.215.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225789345 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
2. 18:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225789258 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
3. 18:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225788951 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
4. 18:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225788901 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
5. 18:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225788474 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
6. 18:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225788296 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
7. 18:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225787710 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
8. 18:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225787427 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
9. 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225787154 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
10. 18:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225786148 by MagicMncheher26 (talk)"
11. 18:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225786085 by MagicMncheher26 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danial Afzal Khan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

11 RR as I write this.   Aloha27  talk  18:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It's an LTA who has been vandalising this page all day with various accounts, including the current one impersonating an admin. Which five seconds of research would've revealed. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

PhilKnigbt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now been blocked as an LTA. Reverting vandalism is an exception to 3RR. Please re-read the policy. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Regardless. YOU have violated 3RR. I warned you on your talk page. You blanked said warning. That indicates that you indeed, read it. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is an exception to 3RR. Please re-read the policy. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll let the admins here deal with this and make their decision. Good day to you.   Aloha27  talk  18:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

↓ And they have ↓ Please read WP:3RRNO as suggested. Thanks. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'll promise to yell at any admin who blocks you. :-) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I have requested ECP for that page to hopefully eliminate the disruptive editing.   Aloha27  talk  19:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It may be worth you adding the AfD pages seen in the latest sock's contribs – Special:Contributions/136.226.53.24 – as the LTA will likely target them again too. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That IP has been blocked for 72 hours.   Aloha27  talk  19:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I know – I was the one who reported them to AIV. Special:Contributions/136.226.53.24 provides a handy list of all the targeted AfDs and you've got an easy score here by adding them to your RfPP request. I'm quite surprised how hard it is to get you to understand… well, anything at all… but that's not important right now. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

46.69 is correct. WP:3RRNO allows reverting vandalism. Now, WP:STOPIT discourages this sort of thing, but that's only an essay. 46.69 has done nothing block-worthy, here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

No violation. Thanks to User:46.69.215.187 for reverting vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Ironzombie39 reported by User:Skitash (Result: )

Page: Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ironzombie39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:07, 26 May 2024
2. 23:43, 26 May 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]

Comments:
This user with 85 edits has been edit warring on a contentious topic where editors are not allowed to make more than one revert per 24 hours. Skitash (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:209899Geovanni reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Thirty Seconds to Mars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 209899Geovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]

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

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

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

Comments:
Not a 3RR report but a slow moving edit war that is a continuation of a 6 May ANEW report for which they were blocked. Not counting the 4 IP reverts before their account was created, they have made this exact revert 8 times with no attempt at discussion. With the exception of their first edit, the editor has never used any talk page of any kind despite a request to do so and continues to edit war to their preferred version. - Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) article history

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)