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:49.3.90.116 reported by User:PhinsUp23 (Result: Blocked 2 years; sockmaster's block extended as well)

Page: 2024 NRL season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 49.3.90.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

Comments:
Suspect this IP is also being used for ban evasion in addition to violating 3RR. See previous reports/block logs regarding User:CodyCruickshank and IPs 220.236.126.177 & 110.175.242.146. Based on actions and confrontational attitude this appears to be the same person, as does 220.236.119.43. Previous attempts to discuss issues on article/user talk pages with this person are usually ignored so I didn't really bother this time, they mostly communicate via edit summaries but don't try and actually discuss their issues further. PhinsUp23 (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So I've just added another diff to this, User:AP 499D25 reverted back to the previous version I gave but this IP has gone in and reverted again anyway rather than start any discussion on the article talk page or their own. PhinsUp23 (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two years I have also extended the block on 220.236.119.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to that length as well. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Bravehm reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Warned)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

Comments:

Bravehm is also extremely manipulative; I restored sourced info removed by Bravehm [14], restoring +605 bytes. They then not only revert me, but remove even more sourced info (-1189 bytes) [15], having the nerve to ask me to go to the talk page, ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS. I then revert them again [16], only to get reverted again, but this time they removed even more bytes (-1751), still asking me to "explain myself" [17]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Because Bravehm was not warned about edit-warring, I have given them an opportunity to self-revert. We'll see what they do.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Bravehm has self-reverted avoiding a block; however, they are warned that any subsequent reverts may result in a block without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]
6. [23]

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

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:

• 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 [27] 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 [28] also require consensus wow shocking! This is talk page of the article [29][30] 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 [31]) 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:JabSaiyaan reported by User:Ankitsalsa14 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

User:JabSaiyaan reported by User:Ankitjazz14 (Result: Page protected) Page: Chibcha language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: 94.73.32.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This list shows the repeated and baseless edits made by the user without engaging in discussions of stating reliable sources.

Diffs of the user's reverts: I had posted factual data on page GangubaiKathiawadi considered authentic as per wikipedia source WP:ICTFSOURCES

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User did not use talk page. Just kept reverting without citing sources or revealing concrete facts. Moreover the user kept stating vague data about authenticity of my sources which is evidently false. I have attempted to discuss, however the user is adamant and non-cooperative

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: The user has been reported for vandalism and given enough warnings as also seen on the talk page. Moreover past history of the user suggests clear cases of edit warring and instances of vandalism on other pages.

Reply: User:Ankitsalsa14 doesn't know Wikipedia guidelines. The user is talking about "repeated and baseless edits made by the user without engaging in discussions" but they themselves did that first. There is a note where they made edits which states "DO NOT REMOVE FIGURES WITHOUT CONSENSUS AT THE TALK PAGE" but they kept making those edits and when reverted they started engaging in edit warring. There's nothing to report here, the user themselves removed one of thier unreliable sources here,[32] There are already enough sources attached to the main page and more reliable, the sources of this user aren't reliable for budget purpose. Same sources has been used for multiple recent Bollywood productions. They are also unnecessarily adding warnings on my talk page instead of discussing, I even replied to them here,[33] but instead of replying back and discussing they want to engage in edit warring. JabSaiyaan (talk)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

References

User:Félix137792 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Semi-protected)

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

User being reported: Félix137792 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Records and developments */ The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel - Mark S. Smith, The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel - Mark S. Smith, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel - William G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? - William G. Dever, Biblical History and Israel S Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History - Megan Moore, Brad Kelle"
2. 11:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Records and developments */ The attached source and statement are not accepted by the majority of historians. At most, it would hold its place if it was also pointed out that this is not the consensus of historians at all. According to most historians (see: William G. Dever or Mark S. Smith) Yahweh was already present in the early period and also syncretism happened then."
3. 11:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1225575550 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
4. 22:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC) "Most scientists don't think so. in fact, it is contrary to the consensus."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
2. 11:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Yahwism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC) "Revert"

Comments:

Plus two reverts by two different Hungarian IPs. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• The article was semi-protected for one year by El C.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• For two years. It was protected for one year prior, so I doubled it this time around. El_C 13:50, 25 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: [34]

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: [35]

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)

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: [36]

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: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43]

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 ([44] [45]), 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: )

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: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [52]

Comments:

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

User:George Awad 1 reported by User:Wikibear47 (Result: )

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)

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)