Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    Multiple users reported by User:128.193.8.42 (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: 2026 Arizona gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 68.106.243.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 152.37.235.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [1] Diffs of the user's reverts: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] []



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] [28] [29]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit warriors in this dispute haven't made any attempts to resolve it on the talk page

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [30] [31] [32]

    Comments: I'm not involved with this dispute, but I came across it while reading this page and it looked very severe and like it had been going on for a long time now with nothing happening 128.193.8.42 (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please make this person stop. An IP user continuously attempts to add an endorsement on the page cited to social media posts, in violation of WP:ENDORSE, which states that "lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources." Despite being told this over and over again, they refuse to listen. Here's a quote from one of their edit summaries: "WP:ENDORSE requires endorsements to be 'verifiable by reliable sources' but does not mandate that they be covered solely by independent sources." This was after I sent them the aforementioned quote. At a certain point they started trying to claim that my quote is not actually on WP:ENDORSE even though it clearly is. Eventually they dropped that claim, but still refuse to admit they're wrong. I don't know how to reason with someone so detached from reality. I requested for the page to be protected to stop their vandalism, but nobody responded to the request. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      They have continued to edit war after this post [33] [34] [35]. The BottleOfChocolateMilk has also been reminded many times on their user talk page that American Politics is a contentious topic. 128.193.8.40 (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted once because I hadn't seen this yet. After that I stopped. I am aware that American Politics is a contentious topic. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Bottle, you arguably violated 3RR. But ... as the edit warring is two days in the past so blocking both of you would not accomplish anything, if you think it's going to resume would you like full protection for three days while you work this out on talk? Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They were reminded of the edit warring rule many times on their user talk article [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44], so I didn't see anything to suggest that this is just a one-off thing or that they wouldn't continue to edit war in the future. 128.193.8.41 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing that could really be "worked out" on talk. You can see from the revision history that I've tried to explain to this IP editor numerous times that they're breaking Wikipedia's rules and yet they continue to deny reality. I seriously doubt that a talk page discussion would go any differently. This is why I don't do talk page "discussions." Two editors argue for a bit, nobody else participates, and thus nothing is resolved. Given that WP:ENDORSE blatantly prohibits what this IP editor is doing, it seems like this could be resolved by having other editors step in and tell them that they're wrong, but it doesn't seem like anyone is interested in doing that. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All your arguments have been made in edit summaries, which, while granted they appear to have been reading and responding to, are not the ideal format for this sort of thing due to the character limit and indeed aren't supposed to be used for this sort of continued discussion.
    I note that one of the IPs themselves invited you, very nicely, to take it to the talk page, which as of this post has not been used since it was created six months ago.
    And I agree with the IPs that the wording of ENDORSE is not as clear-cut as you would like it to be. That's why things like this happen, and that's why we have talk pages to clear things like this up at least as far as it applies to particular articles.
    Given all this, if you persist in all this, I would see no remaining choice but to not only semi-protect the page for some time, but block you from it for the equivalent since you are EC. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case:they did it again [45], same content but different IP that got undone 128.193.152.193 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BOCM, was this you? It's not a good look in this situation to edit as an IP. Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WilliowJay reported by User:Abo Yemen (Result: Protected for a week)

    [edit]

    Page: Yemenis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: WilliowJay (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. [46]
    2. [47]
    3. [48]
    4. [49], made using an IP address after being warned

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: custom warning written by me, was later deleted by him

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments: 

    𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected for a week. I considered blocking Williow as well, but ... since so far they have not started reverting on the other articles where their content removals have been reverted, there is as yet no damage to the encyclopedia in need of prevention. But, they are strongly advised, that could change. It's up to them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LOUTSOCKed again. ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 22:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2A00:23C4:498E:BA01:50A9:FE77:5AC8:4DC1 reported by User:Turini2 (Result: /64 blocked 24h)

    [edit]

    Page: London Underground 2024 Stock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2A00:23C4:498E:BA01:50A9:FE77:5AC8:4DC1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision - It works like that and has been confirmed, please confirm source has not been confirmed, this will be reported."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 14:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC) to 14:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
      1. 14:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision This train will replace current 1972 stock, please provide source it wont be"
      2. 14:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision - Removed without any Source"
    3. 14:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision - The Source is everywhere, check TFL, Please stop removing fact"
    4. 12:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision - Still Deleting fact! - If you read everywhere, even this article it clearly shows what lines this will operating on.. Use your Head!"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on London Underground 2024 Stock."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 15:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "/* NTfL vs 2024TS */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The range 2A00:23C4:498E:BA01:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pax98 reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: Reported at AN/I)

    [edit]

    Page: Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Pax98 (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 06:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC) to 06:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
      1. 06:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281082626 by Taeyab (talk) Sock edit"
      2. 06:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281082595 by Taeyab (talk) Sock edit"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 01:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC) to 01:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
      1. 01:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1280998571 by Taeyab (talk)"
      2. 01:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC) "reverting sock edits"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 04:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC) to 04:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
      1. 04:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "reverted disruptive unsubstantiated edits by sock accounts of Muhamad Ahsan"
      2. 04:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1280414355 by Comsats777 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Already subject of an ANI thread. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I was hoping that I wouldn't see Pax98's name in this way again after the last incident, but I guess they just did it. Anyways, Comsats777 has attempted to resolve the dispute... I think in the talk page before. the link is here. (Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965#Fatal casualties of 1965 war ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Comsats777 has attempted to resolve the dispute"
    -
    It's yet another sock of Muhamad Ahsan!! Pax98 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pax. im guessing you are an indian? Taeyab (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Drop the act, Muhamad. Pax98 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined Since, as noted, this is being discussed at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Taeyab reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: Declined)

    [edit]

    Page: Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Taeyab (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 05:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC) to 05:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
      1. 05:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281063379 by Pax98 (talk)"
      2. 05:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281064010 by Pax98 (talk)"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 17:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC) to 18:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
      1. 17:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1280914506 by Pax98 (talk) reverting accurate edits without good reason"
      2. 17:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1280914233 by Pax98 (talk) These casualties are more accurate and have better sources"
      3. 17:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "please find a source for the claim '1,200 pakistani civillians killed' also this should not be stated with military casualties, rather underneath them."
      4. 17:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "part of conflicts"
      5. 18:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Edit war ongoing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I undid the reversions of Pax98 who is consistently making disruptive edits and reverting work of others without consensus or explanation. He also appears to be false claiming sockpuppetry on me and other editors. Taeyab (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined as clearly retaliation for above report, which itself is under discussion at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ProKMT reported by User:Guotaian (Result: Both blocked 1 week)

    [edit]

    Page: Template:Liberalism in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ProKMT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [51]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [52]
    2. [53]
    3. [54]
    4. [55]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

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

    Comments:

    The consensus was already established in third opinion a few weeks ago. The user claimed that "It is not REAL third opinion", but third opinions are to resolve disputes so an edit war wouldn't happen again. It is regrettable that the user is not respecting it and wants to intensify conflict. User:Guotaian (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No agreement has been reached at the third opinion. The definition of "China" is still not agreed upon, I am sticking to the original version and Guotaian is undermining the article. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Political ideology templates) ProKMT (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guotaian insists on a consensus that doesn't exist. Neither party should be edit warring but I would suggest they, especially, need to stop pursuing this across multiple pages. Simonm223 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223 After many disputes, I requested for a third opinion to resolve any warring. Here it is: [59]. Guotaian (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits have already extended far beyond the scope of that 3O and there are other consensus mechanisms including a few AfDs that have been created since and that supersede a 3O. Simonm223 (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See this AfD which directly address not doing what you did with this string of edits. While ProKMT should not edit war, they should not have to feel like they have to edit war in order to protect these articles from clear disruption. There is no such partial justification for your actions here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223 Merging the Neoauthoritarianism article had nothing to do with my edits as I had just deleted the sections which included Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. I had never deleted the Neoauthoritarianism section at all. Guotaian (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion, at that AfD, which you participated in, made it very clear that Conservatism in China would cover all parts of China and not just those currently administered by the People's Republic of China. That also led to the move from Conservatism in Greater China back to Conservatism in China - which your edits are now undoing. Again, this is disruptive now and has to stop. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223 The third opinion was established before the AFD discussion made a decision. The Third opinion provided a solution for the exact dispute we are currently having and should be respected. Guotaian (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3O was before the AfD that overrode it on the basis of a lot more than three opinions being considered. You can't claim you have carte-blanche to override consensus on the basis of one person agreeing with you in a limited subset of cases. I'd rather not have to bother the person who gave the 3O but I think they'd likely agree that their opinion doesn't override consensus at AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223 I started the AFD but it was only discussed between you and Pro-KMT. This does not provide the basis for the AFD having authority to decide the ongoing dispute. Guotaian (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not actually the case but see also this AfD where several people weighed in on this situation and opposed your current edit path. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223 The AFD you referenced agreed to restore the article to its original title, "Conservatism in China". However, the original version focused solely on the PRC, excluding other regions such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. The AFD did not specify the scope of the reverted page. Therefore, the most accurate approach is to return to its original form follow third opinion's interpretation. Guotaian (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You are, again, incorrect. And you don't have to keep tagging me here. I've presented my evidence. I've nothing further to say here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for tagging you, and I appreciate that you've shared your evidence. However, saying that my point above was " again, incorrect" is not constructive if you do not explain how. If you ever want to revisit the discussion, I'm happy to continue the conversation. Guotaian (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Guotaian reported by User:ProKMT (Result: Both blocked 1 week)

    [edit]

    Page: Template:Conservatism in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Liberalism in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Guotaian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [60]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [61], [62]
    2. [63], [64]
    3. [65], [66]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67], [68]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [69]

    Comments: Guotaian constantly creates unnecessary editing wars and repeats destructive editing. Guotaian cannot even accept pages from the source or the original version. ProKMT (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Even though I used the talk page to prevent editorial disputes, Guotaian did not participate at all. (Template talk:Conservatism in China#Range of "China") ProKMT (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.160.247.245 reported by User:Ybsone (Result: Blocked 1 week)

    [edit]

    Page: TVR Griffith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 86.160.247.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [70]

    Diffs of the user's reverts: It is around 13 reverts together only today only on one page. He is constantly removing pictures of a concept car just because he does have an opinion on the ownership of the company. He is a repeating offender.



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [73]

    Comments: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybsone (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Special:Diff/1281139514 - the IP user reported removing this AN3 report. Departure– (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:109.124.199.29 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: Blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Shū ni Ichido Classmate o Kau Hanashi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 109.124.199.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1280127893

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [74]
    2. [75]
    3. [76]
    4. [77]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [80]

    Comments:

    IP editor edit warring over the demographic of this novel series, changing it to "Women" as per their opinion, in breach of the consensus that the publication which the novel is serialized in is officially targeted to a male demographic. Made personal attacks against me on their talk page and in one of their inflammatory edit summaries when I attempted to correct their behavior. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this report, they have posted a rant about their opinion on the article's talk page. They clearly do not understand the issues with their edits and it does not seem as if they have any interest in doing so. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:154.208.60.99 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Blocked 24h)

    [edit]

    Page: Dhund (tribe) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 154.208.60.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [81] (or [82]; see comment below)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [83]
    2. [84]
    3. [85]
    4. [86]
    5. [87]
    6. [88]
    7. [89]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [92], [93], [94]

    Comments:

    The original edit that introduced the unsourced ethnicity claim is this one by Ashir2, though this account has not returned since and the IP is the one edit-warring with more specific additions. Note: the IP user is also edit-warring on the same issue at Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib ([95], [96], [97], [98], [99]), at Abbasi ([100], [101], [102], [103]), and at Abbasid dynasty ([104], [105], [106], [107]); in the latter two cases, the brand new account Sardarkhanabbasi is clearly the same user and, I would guess, will likely continue the edit-warring if not blocked as well. R Prazeres (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:]] reported by User:KitoMaxi (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Africa (Roman province) & Algerian Air Force & Algerian Civil Defence & Ancient Libya & Traditional Berber religion & other pages]] 
    User being reported: Skitash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [108]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [109]
    2. [110]
    3. [111]
    4. [112]
    5. [113]
    6. [114]
    7. [115]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [118]

    Comments: edit war past 3rd warning, user is mass undoing edits across several articles 12345..etc, the user is doing this before a verdict is issued on an open case accusation of sockpuppetry, which violates wikipedia WP:DISRUPT, users cannot mass undo sourced edits based on suspicion alone and without justification KitoMaxi (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potymkin, where Skitash has accused the original creator of this of sockpuppetry in this case. Departure– (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for attaching a link to the investigation. It's very obvious that it's a block-evading sock, and I'm not surprised they're denying it, considering they've consistently done the same with every other sockpuppet account of theirs.[119][120][121] I reverted their edits per WP:BLOCKEVADE (including restoring edits made by their prior sock account). As for the one article where I've made four edits within 24 hours without realizing, I've self-reverted my edit until the sock gets blocked. Skitash (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock or not, your assumptions have not yet been verified, and you repeatedly used the rollback tool to revert changes @Skitash. There was no imminent need to be doing so instead of allowing the SPI to play out. Instead, you misused rollback across a number of articles while you both engaged in entirely unnecessary edit warring. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't participate at this board typically, I think both of those involves should be blocked based on the WP:3RR violations at Massylii. Obviously both have behaved entirely inappropriate and were engaged in edit wars across multiple articles, but the linked one is a clear violation from both. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    4 diffs for each of them from Massylii:
    KitoMaxi: 1, 2, 3, 4
    Skitash: 1, 2, 3, 4
    Again, neither was imminently necessary, and it clearly spread to other articles as well (or spread here from elsewhere). Either way, clear inappropriate behaviour by both editors with a clear and defined line being crossed at this article. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for edit warring and violating WP:3RR. I was trying to uphold WP:BLOCKEVADE against a sock, but I see now I should've held off until the investigation was over. It won't happen again and I'll use my rollback permissions carefully and more appropriately next time. Skitash (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On that note, could you please take a look at this? I'm pretty sure that's a personal attack, and it comes at a time when even other editors are realizing really obvious patterns from their interactions with the editor. Skitash (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:89.113.127.29 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Shū ni Ichido Classmate o Kau Hanashi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 89.113.127.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1280127893

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [122]
    2. [123]
    3. [124]
    4. [125]
    5. [126]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [127]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [128]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [129]

    Comments:

    The IP user who was blocked earlier for personal attacks in relation to their edit warring on this page has returned, evading their block under another IP. They have openly admitted to being the same person on the article's talk page, and are continuing the same behavior as before. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1281308295"