Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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

User:Rambling Rambler reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: No violation)

Page: Haiti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rambling Rambler (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:
User's consistent removal of cited work in WP:LEAD. User's initial reasoning: "Absolutely not the place for it, even if it wasn't using questionable sources." Upon user's second reversal, user states, "WP:ONUS warrants consensus for inclusion". --In my experience ONUS has not been too clear on the matter, leaving itself open for interpretation stating that it is "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." --However, there is currently one (single) user in dispute, not two or more, which is another reason why I had restored the article while stating this concern on the article's talk page in a willingness to discuss further. Warned user to not end up breaking WP:3RR in my restoration edit and began engaging in talk discussions as per the user's request. User ignored the warning on the restoration edit and also ignored the warning rendered on user's talk page while promptly removing the issued warning.

Furthermore, upon user's third reversible, instead of engaging in the article's talk page with me, user was preoccupied making an edit change to another article I had recently edited by altering my wording which is in direct relation to the aforementioned article. (See: Jimmy Chérizier user's edit], my edit). Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no violation of the 3RR here, because it's only on the 4th revert that it becomes a technical infringement. Furthermore, I agree with Rambling Rambler that the added material is not of sufficient importance to include in the lead of this sovereign state article. I suggest you engage with the dialogue on the talk page and refrain from re-adding it unless there's a consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Seriously dude?

I haven't broken 3RR (nor do I intend to). So I struggle to see this report as anything but done with mal-intent.

WP:ONUS, which you've quoted here, clearly states "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" which means you as you included the content that's been disputed. You didn't seek to achieve this but just re-inserted the disputed content. I removed the edit-warring template from my talk page (as I am perfectly allowed to do) because you'd spammed it at the same time as re-inserting disputed content and opening an article talk page discussion so could've simply tagged me.

Furthermore, upon user's third reversible, instead of engaging in the article's talk page with me, user was preoccupied making an edit change to another article I had recently edited by altering my wording which is in direct relation to the aforementioned article

The edit to the Jimmy Cherizier article (which is clearly backed by policy) is clearly dated 23:08 UTC (which, you thanked me for btw), which not only happened 12 minutes before you actually bothered to finally try to establish consensus for your disputed edits on the Haiti article[8] but 22 minutes before the "third revert". So unless you're suggesting I've engaged in time travel I don't get what your line of argument here is.

Also, as can be easily seen on the Haiti talk page I did engage with you an hour before this frankly bad-faith and malicious 3RR report. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: For the record, this report is for the engagement in edit-warring even though user did not actually break 3RR which is not a necessary condition for this type of engagement. Any concerning issues were best resolved on the talk page prior to reversals, removals and other accompanying edits in relation to the subject. Will such engagement be the recourse moving forward regarding cited material a user may not agree with before a discussion takes place while ignoring warnings to cease in edit-warring? Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Savvyjack23: the bottom line is that there was a disagreement, and both yourself and Rambling Rambler reverted several times back to your favoured version. So a WP:TROUT is due to both of you for that. I'm WP:INVOLVED now, having participated in the talk page discusssion, but I don't see that an admin could declare one of you disruptive but not the other. In any case, the edit war has now abated, so no action seems necessary. It also seems clear that consensus from the discussion so far at Talk:Haiti is against including the disputed material.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru what I don't get is why they made this report despite admitting I didn't break the rules this noticeboard is for enforcing, and chose to make it a substantial amount of time after myself and another editor had made it clear on the talk page their additions weren't appropriate. The fact they're quoting policy but acting in the exact opposite manner to what it plainly says (i.e. arguing WP:ONUS is consensus for exclusion when it's consensus for inclusion) and that they made sure to appear to jump through the right hoops to make this report (while bringing up irrelevant issues on another article) just makes me think this is a "Hail Mary" attempt to game the system and hope I get hit with a block by an admin that doesn't look too much into the report. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

no Per above. And it's gone stale to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Nyxaros reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Page protected)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214559121 by 2601:282:8100:790:583F:BDA8:3925:7C24 (talk)"
2. 17:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Rv disruptive; discuss on the talk page"
3. 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1214434364 by Nyxaros (talk): Vandal, unexplained removal of sourced content"
4. 23:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Critical response */ rv"
5. 00:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1214224105 by TropicAces (talk): Blocked IP returned again..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:34, 18 March 2024 diff hist −342‎ User talk:Nyxaros ‎ "And is your poorly edited version that shows more than necessary worth using? You can go to the talk page to discuss your opinion to remove a file with referenced text, but I don't think anyone will agree with that."
2. 21:31, 14 March 2024 diff hist −10‎ Dune: Part Two "You have no idea how to write an encyclopedic article, do you?"
3. 3:11, 2 March 2024 diff hist −481‎ The Handmaiden ‎ "So notable and reliable..." (sarcasm)
4. 13:11, 2 March 2024 diff hist −320‎ The Handmaiden ‎ "also so very sourced..." (doubling down on unnecessary sarcasm)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:49, 26 February 2024 diff hist −1,058‎ User talk:Nyxaros ‎ "stay away from my talk page"

Comments:

Reported on my talk page by IP, blocked some time ago for edit warring so knows the “rules”. I protected the page. But off to bed now! Doug Weller talk 21:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: One of these is not a revert, and the other one is after 24h has passed. So I'm at three now. If you are gonna block me for reverting the IP socks and obvious vandalism, do so. ภץאคгöร 21:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: After a deeper look I think this is being confused with a simple page protection request. Has more to do I think with contributor ภץאคгöร constantly bullying others, violating the 3RR rules, and less to do with the anonymous IP trolls he is provoking. The block log indicates he has been banned twice, once for violating this rule and also for uncivility edit-warring. Subsequent LTA by the editor over the years who slipped through the cracks in the form of obvious uncivil attacks in content disputes. Grows emboldened over time and seemingly exploits blocked users to push a point of view and mask his own disruptive behavior. Relying on two wrongs makes a right logic. Several edit wars taking place over multiple film articles. Dune Part 2 is the most recent example. Recommend an indef if possible from movie articles until this editor can prove he'll play nicely with others. Telling problematic edits like this demonstrate this user is not here to constructively build an encyclopedia.63.149.127.130 (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller When I was checking out the other reports, I noticed one of the moderators passing through has possibly mistakenly misunderstood your report to suggest this was only about page protection. Almost missed it myself. I've expanded the report with some examples that better display the issue here. Worth taking a second look. Off to bed myself! 63.149.127.130 (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Bold of you to assume that others have misunderstood when clearly they have not, but thanks for revealing your IP to show that you changed it just to write about five years ago in this section, whichever one you are. Nice try! ภץאคгöร 00:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Page protected for three days, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't make any sense of that. Who changed what 5 years ago? If you think that's me editing as an IP, you're way off base. I"d have to be crazy to do that. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you took it personally when it is clear that IP socks were mentioned, but this discussion is over. ภץאคгöร 10:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Because your reply was to me. See the indentations. Glad to hear it wasn't meant for me. But this is getting ridiculous. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No it wasn't. It was IP who pinged you. And yes, it has been ridiculous for quite some time actually. ภץאคгöร 15:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:88.230.170.214 reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: Page semiprotected)

Page: TAI TF Kaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 88.230.170.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "User edit warring and trying to push point of view without consensus and change is not an improvement. Reverted"
2. 11:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Your stated explanation "changed developing to developed" While your actual intention was to make it look like it was a project of both TAI and BAE systems which isn't the case. And your "source" doesn't trump previous sources. Your change is not an improvement in any way. Please do not edit war and get a consensus."
3. 10:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214501514 by Shadow4dark (talk) It's not a "project of both" as text implies but rather BAE is a sub-contructor. Get a consensus on talk page before making such edit."
4. 09:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214437757 by FoxtAl (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on TAI TF Kaan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Note This appears to be part of a wider Turkish nationalist edit warring campaign which is also taking place on Fifth-generation fighter — Czello ^(music) 12:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

New ip evade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.230.181.243 Shadow4dark (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. The anonymous edits have been reverted by at least three other editors. This looks to be an IP-hopping war (three different IPs all from the 88.230.* range making similar edits), so a block of a single IP wouldn't be enough. Lecturing others in your edit summaries about the importance of consensus is not a substitute for real discussion. I note that the article on Fifth generation fighter was having seimilar problems and is now semied for a month by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:ShownDownl reported by User:Alalch E. (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "Article and its citations falsely doxxes an uninvolved individual who was misidentified as StoneToss. A discussion is already under way through info-en-q@wikipedia.org."
2. 16:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "Article and links falsely gives out a name of an unconfirmed individual. This is WP: LIBEL. Wait for the email discussion to conclude. Thank you."
3. 16:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "Seeing as you're the one who created the page: wait until the WP: LIBEL email is concluded."
4. 15:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "This is libelous content. Requesting that no new information is added until my response to info-en-q@wikipedia.org is concluded. The citations are outdated and mistakenly label different users as being the same (wrongly accused) individual."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on StoneToss."
2. 16:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on StoneToss."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Page history clear request */ Reply"

Comments: See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Primarily on Wikipedia to launder neo-nazi cartoonist—Alalch E. 16:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it even possible to WP:LIBEL someone who has not been named on Wikipedia?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:ca:4400:1660:384b:f34:d815:69e1 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Massacre of the Innocents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:ca:4400:1660:384b:f34:d815:69e1 (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. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

Comments:

And add to that PA's as well, and being a SPA. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for the personal attacks, now rev-del'ed. Favonian (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:76.50.244.14 reported by User:Psychologist Guy (Result: Blocked for 72 hours and alerted to CTOPS)

Page: Max Lugavere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.50.244.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]
5. [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:

Single purpose IP, repeatedly moving sourced material from Max Lugavere's Wikipedia lead. A discussion at WP:FTN has revealed they hold fringe views about nutrition. Far from neutral editing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a false claim, as Psychologist Guy is clearly biased in favor of veganism/vegetarianism, which Max Lugavere has spoken out against. He is not an impartial or neutral party suitable to be editing Max's page. Psychologist Guy has also removed sourced material that has been contributed for no apparent reason (i.e. announcement of Max's documentary: https://deadline.com/2024/03/little-empty-boxes-release-date-abramorama-1235843326/. 76.50.244.14 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not a false claim, you have been edit-warring and reverting the same reliable-sourced content. Over at WP:FTN you have also been told not to continue with personal attacks [25]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours since this was two violations and it took place on an article in a contentious topic area (CT/CF). User will duly be alerted. I will also be adding a CTOPS notice to the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll also note the user's clear issue with AGF as evinced above and at the FTN thread. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Softlemonades reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31] [32] [33] see Talk:WikiLeaks#RSP#WikiLeaks

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [34]

Comments:

Editor removed citations a couple of weeks ago; two editors opposed the removal on talk. Softlemonades today started edit warring to implement their earlier changes against that consensus. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The first edit [35] was not a revert, I replaced self-published sources with RSes. It did not implement earlier changes. I did not perform more than three reverts.

See What is a reversion? Any edit to existing text could be said to reverse some of a previous edit. However, this is not the way the community defines reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.

Editor removed citations a couple of weeks ago; two editors opposed the removal on talk. The other editor did not object, they agreed they could be used before I brought up COPYLINK. And WP:Consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority).

Cambial did not answer on Talk other than to say he would not explain things [36] because my uestions [37] were WP:REHASH. I asked why the self-published sources were needed but no answer. I asked why linking to release page to stolen self published leaks didnt violate COPYLINK but no answer.

Cambial has a history of edit warring on different pages and has been blocked from this page before [38] Softlem (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Softlemonades claim that they did not implement earlier changes is not correct. Their earlier edit was to remove several citations. They removed these same citations again in every later edit (including the first one), as the diffs readily demonstrate. Softlemonades repeated their arguments on talk numerous times in response to other editors. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Softlemonades repeated their arguments on talk numerous times in response to other editors. What other editors?

Asking you to explain your argument [39] is not repeating mine. Not answering is Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors

You just say I see no copylink problem. [40] but do not explain why linking to stolen self published material is not WP:LINKVIO However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders.

The page that indexes it is COPYLINK violation because it hosts the COPYVIO material. There is no need for sources that might be COPYLINK Softlem (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Your claims are inaccurate, but regardless, they have no bearing on and are not an excuse for your edit warring against the consensus view on talk. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Claiming that Syria Files and Stratfor email leak do not involve third parties [41] is inaccurate Softlem (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

While there is no violation for now, I'm not closing this as both of your third reverts were very recent as I type this, and we should see how this goes. Yes, there's a 2-1 consensus in favor of Softlem's position, but that's from an editor's drive-by comment three weeks ago; they haven't otherwise participated in this very lively discussion. Since the article has been designated as being within a contentious topic, I think I would be within my rights to consider brief full protection on my own initiative, but I'm not going to go there yet as I think the best course of action for the two of you would be to get more editors involved and reach a stronger consensus (preferably through discussions on relevant noticeboards, not an RfC). Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be within my rights to consider brief full protection on my own initiative Support this and making the page 1RR like Julian Assange Softlem (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I requested temporary page protection [42] Softlem (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Daniel Case: The four reverts by Softlemonades - the exact same set of code removed by Softlemonades in the "Previous version" diff they then remove again in the four recent edits - breach the 3RR rule, no? What am I missing? Cambial — foliar❧ 20:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The first diff you link to (the 13:17 one) does not appear to be a revert of another editor's recent preceding edit. It's the edit they were reverting to. The rule is more than three reverts, not more than three of the same edit. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a revert of this edit, which restored the citations after Softlemonades first removed them in the edit indicated as previous version above. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if this were a case of four reverts, having reviewed some of the citations that were removed, there does appear to be a WP:COPYLINKS/WP:COPYVIO here, so WP:3RRNO#5 would apply. For example, the citation to Egads! Confidential 9/11 Pager Messages Disclosed is undeniably a copyvio of the original article by CBS News. I haven't reviewed all of the links, and some of it gets pretty complicated because the copyright of confidential government materials gets pretty complex in some jurisdictions. But it is plausible that other leaks, like the Syria Files or Stratfor emails are copyrighted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The 3RR exception #5 is for clear copyright violations, meaning use of copyrighted material in the article. There is no copyrighted material removed in Softlemonades edit-warred change. The exception is not for external links. There has been no copyrighted material put in the article, and no suggestion - except for an inaccurate claim from the edit warring user - that there is. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:COPYVIO Copyright-infringing material should also not be linked to. We are not permitted to link to material that knowingly violates copyright. We can no-more link to the WikiLeaks copy of Egads! than we can to a research paper on SciHub, a copy of a book on LibGen, or a copy of a movie, TV show, or video game on Pirate Bay. 3RRNO#5 covers removal of violating links in all of those situations. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I made unrelated revert on the page. [43] I realized it might be 3RR so I tried to self revert, but Cambial corrected first [44] Softlem (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Redacted II reported by User:Redraiderengineer (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: SpaceX Starship flight tests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redacted II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 15:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of IFT-3 outcome to success
2. 19:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of IFT-3 outcome to success
3. 12:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of launch outcome bar charts
4. 15:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of IFT-5+ table
5. 16:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of IFT-5+ table
6. 14:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of IFT-5+ table
7. 17:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of IFT outcomes and speculation template (series)
8. 19:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of speculation inline tags (series)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 19:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 19:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments:
Multiple editors have engaged in edit warring across SpaceX Starship-related articles, but Redacted II has performed a large number of reverts on this article, including five reverts within a roughly 28-hour period.

Here are the edits I reverted:

The first was an edit that declared IFT-3 a failure. This goes against WP:STATUS QUO, so I reverted it. The second revert was for the same reason.

The third was undoing an extremely bold edit (by a user who is known for making bold edits). It deleted an important part of the article, so I reverted it.

The next 3 reverts were re-adding sourced material. This had been debated a month prior on the talk page.

The 8th revert was removing speculation tags, as the material being declared speculative was sourced.

The user who made the majority of edits reverted often disguised deleting content by making other changes as part of the same edit. IIRC, this is an extremely bad-faith practice.

I'll provide the Dif's for all of the disruptive edits shortly (I don't want to do it via source-editing)Redacted II (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

1 They hid removing the chart in an edit that they described as "detail about the flight plan"

2They changed the color of several cells in the table for IFT-2 and IFT-1. I informed them in my reversion that there was precedent for what colors to use, and directed them to an example)

3 They deleted the y-tick marks on the # of launches chart, describing their edit with "weird numbers now fixed".

4 They declared cited material speculation

Yes, I made a lot of reversions. But breaking the 3RR rule was done because of a disruptive editor. and since following 3RR would have prevented me from maintaining the Starship Flight Tests article, so I had to ignore the rule.

Earlier today, I requested that the Starship Flight Tests article be protected, due to the disruptive edits.

(If the defendant commenting here is against the rules of ANI, then please delete both this comment and the one above) Redacted II (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There are exceptions to 3RR, but maintaining the status quo, color warring, BRD, and removing maintenance templates are generally not recognized.

The "weird numbers now fixed" edit is in a series of edits to the bar charts, so it should be viewed as a whole.

This appears to lean more toward preserving a preferred version of the article than reverting obvious vandalism. Redraiderengineer (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"The "weird numbers now fixed" edit is in a series of edits"

Still, it completely deleted a critical part of the chart. And deleted info backed by a source (as had been noted before in the talk page. If they had checked, they would have known that the edits they made were disruptive).

" maintaining the status quo, color warring, BRD, and removing maintenance templates are generally not recognized."

And if they were disrupting just one of those, I'd agree with you. But this editor was violating multiple precedents, violating the status quo, and seemingly due to a dislike for SpaceX (and thus, vandalism).

While they have never admitted to any such bias, it is very suspicious that multiple editors who started editing on or immediately after IFT-3 have been calling for IFT-3 to be a failure. At least one of them is being investigated for sockpuppetry.

This, combined with their editing history, indicates that they are editing solely to push a narrative. And I believe that constitutes vandalism. Redacted II (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Redacted II, vandalism is intentional disruptive editing, which most disruptive editing isn't. Vandalism is done with an intent of damaging the encyclopedia, but even highly stubborn edit warring is usually done with a genuine intent of improving the encyclopedia against others' wrong ideas. So please avoid calling it "vandalism" if your main point is that it's simply "disruptive". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree This user should be immediately unblocked. He is a high quality editor that constantly needs to revert vandalism committed on many SpaceX-related pages. Ergzay (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ergzay, I encourage you to read my 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC) message about vandalism, and to have a closer look at the block settings that apply to one specific page only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Jolly73881 reported by User:Griboski (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Kosovo War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jolly73881 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51] (I posted on the user's talk page instead)

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

I've actually warned this user on their talk page about misrepresenting sources on another article and attempted to discuss the matter with them. They haven't acknowledged or tried to discuss except for saying I was annoying on my TP.

Regarding the edit-warring/dispute on this article, I reached out to them and attempted to reach a compromise. Their response was "chill out weirdo". So they're clearly not interested in building an encyclopedia. This was all before their last two reverts. --Griboski (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Aoidh (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Hellaciousphlegm reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) to 17:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
   1. 17:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214862406 by Soetermans (talk) You are driving me insane. you do not play video games, you do care about this page, talk to other editors before reverting my change again"
   2. 17:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "placated that guy again. removed the reference to stylization"
2. 17:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214860422 by Soetermans (talk)"
3. 15:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1214850279 by Soetermans (talk) This was a unnecessary restore, if you have a problem with the new revisions please just edit it instead."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Ultrakill."
2. 17:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Thoughts from a random editor */ re"
2. 17:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Thoughts from a random editor */ re"

Comments:

Note that Hellaciousphlegm is now at 4 reverts today. Woodroar (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I am done with reverts until I can either find a better reason to include The Final War in the plot synopsis. Hellaciousphlegm (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed my edit in question. Hellaciousphlegm (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This one was still too many, and Woodroar took care of it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Алексей 1000 reported by User:Jonathan Deamer (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: October 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Алексей 1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "/* 1901–present */Correcting historical mistake"
2. 15:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "/* 1901–present */Nonsensical historical content removed"
3. 14:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "/* 1901–present */Historical mistake fixed"
4. 14:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "/* 1901–present */Corrected historical mistake"
5. 14:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Events */Corrected historical mistake"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:EditorAtLarge1976 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Institute of Economic Affairs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: EditorAtLarge1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC) "Deleted pejorative and redundant description. Next line describes that the IEA is associated with the "New Right""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

SPA that has been edit warring over this for months now. Discusses edit, then ignores consensus repeatedly to repeat edit. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Escape Orbit, in future, please fill out the report completely.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:83.51.42.63 reported by User:Thedarkknightli (Result: )

Page: Cate Blanchett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 83.51.42.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [58]

Comments:

User:185.104.63.112 reported by User:Smasongarrison (Result: )

Page: Category:19th-century church buildings in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 185.104.63.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215052850 by Smasongarrison (talk): It's equally disruptive to feed articles of dependent territories to categories of the metropolitan. Stop now."
2. 20:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215049765 by Smasongarrison (talk): To match similar categories of British overseas territories, overseas France, etc."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Adding incorrect categories on Category:19th-century church buildings in Hong Kong."
2. 21:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Category:19th-century church buildings in Hong Kong."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Categorization */ new section"
2. 21:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC) on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories "/* Category request: Category:Legislators by dependent territories */ Reply"

Comments:

Also this one. It's clearly the same IP. [59]. They've also gone over the dispute the renaming of a category and express their opposition to renaming/reparenting. [60] Mason (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)