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. 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:Sapphorain reported by User:2804:248:F666:900:44BF:96AB:C7A9:2D03 (Result: No action)

Page: Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[5]

Comments:

The user has claimed on the talk page that there is consensus for removing but that is not the case. -- 2804:248:f666:900:44bf:96ab:c7a9:2d03 (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from the reported contributor:

The issue is not as simple as is presented here. There are several maps and several contributors involved in this dispute (some registered ones, and an elusive dynamic ip).

In a first stage I removed this map: [6], which is purely speculative and plainly original research, and replaced it by [7], which is more faithful to Dick’s book and less speculative. To that User:Shimbo objected that this latter map is nevertheless also original research, and proposed instead [8], which apparently comes from an admissible source. I agreed in principle, but pointed the problem that the link to this source, even on Wikidata, is for the time being broken. Shimbo said he fixed it, but so far I still see the link as broken. Then User:Gooduserdude came up with an other purely speculative map, [9], backed by no other source on Wikidata than the mention that it is the « own work » of some contributor. When I reverted this, he reinstated the very first map [10], so I reverted again.

Finally a dynamic ip came up, and insisted also in restoring the very first map on the ground that there was no consensus to suppress it. It is probably one of the avatars of this dynamic ip that reported me.

I think the article should remain free of any map until a consensus is reached, either on a clearly acceptable file referenced with an admissible source, or without any map. --Sapphorain (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this summary, apart from it wasn't me who claimed to have fixed the source of the map based on real Axis plans, that was Gooduserdude. As there's only been three people discussing the issues with the maps, and you and I seem to basically agree, I'd say a RFC is the way to build a wider consensus. Shimbo (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds reasonable. I am not at all familiar with that process though (how and where?).--Sapphorain (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The process is explained at WP:RFC Shimbo (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I placed an RfC. --Sapphorain (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action, given the assurances above. Consider joining the RfC at Talk:Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II#RfC on map in lead. I advise that nobody should restore the map unless agreement is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:2605:a000:ffc0:d8:fdf2:3eb5:8751:7a62 reported by User:Hipal (Result: )

Page: Scott Baio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:a000:ffc0:d8:fdf2:3eb5:8751:7a62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:15, 1 April 2022
2. 21:42, 23 March 2022
3. 21:11, 17 March 2022
4. 19:47, 17 March 2022
5. 18:35, 16 March 2022
6. 18:35, 16 March 2022
7. 03:36, 16 March 2022
8. 21:55, 15 March 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:03, 18 March 2022

Relevant talk page discussions: Talk:Scott_Baio#Birth_year, Talk:Scott_Baio#He's_not_reliable_for_his_own_birth_year, Talk:Scott_Baio#How_to_properly_present_and_verify_his_date_of_birth

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

Comments:

User:Agof K.P.2 reported by User:Chip3004 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Frankenstein Conquers the World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Agof K.P.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]
5. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Comments:

It appears that this editor has Violated WP:3RR. Chip3004 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

1 [20]

2 [21]

3 [22]

4 [23]

5 [24]

five reverts by User:Armegon

1 [25]

2 [26]

3 [27]

4 [28]

four reverts by User:FilmandTVFan28 and user outright refused to even talk. user don't even care to communicate and only wanted to do edit war with nothing constructive Agof K.P.2 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

and the user even removes my any comments trying to make me disapper without even arguing my case. pure harassment campaing. Agof K.P.2 (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

and judging by what is in the User talk:FilmandTVFan28 page, unlike the first user who just doubling down on wrong one edit and refuses to give any source and ignores primary sources, this user made an account just for edit wars Agof K.P.2 (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I also reported the user to AIV. Here's what I said: Considering that it is April 1 (April Fools Day), I feel like this may be a trolling account. User has been repeatedly removing sourced content from Frankenstein Conquers the World. User keeps removing the Hepburn/romanization for 地底怪獣 (Chitei Kaijū), despite the fact that it’s on the official poster and part of the film’s Japanese title. I have also presented evidence that secondary sources support the Hepburn/romanization (1). The user has been warned about unconstructive edits but keeps restoring disruptive edits and is being aggressive with their responses. They even started harassing me on my talk page with a false warning (2). The user then resulted to name calling (3). I tried to be reasonable but the user is WP:NOTHERE. Armegon (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The user is also trolling me. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Additional comment: Agof K.P.2 has gone to AIV to make a false report by copying/pasting my original report with alterations [29]. Armegon (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

your behaviour is unconstructive. i reported you for edit war, for ignoring japanese language reading order, for ignoring TOHO official website etc etc. not only you edit war your own version that is not supported by your own evidence (poster and title card) you are also refuse to give primary sources Agof K.P.2 (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Armegon makes a good point. You can't expect us to play by the rules while you do the opposite. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – Indef by User:Daniel Case for WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Lavalizard101 and his IP User:2.100.170.192 reported by User:Sheanus (Result: )

Page: Shon Weissman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lavalizard101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 2.100.170.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (his own IP address - to fool the WP:3RR procedure)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31] Lavalizard101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. [32] Lavalizard101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. [33] Lavalizard101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. [34] Lavalizard101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. [35] Lavalizard101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. [36] - his IP 2.100.170.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37] [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39] [40]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [41] Lavalizard101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
[42] 2.100.170.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
I don't want to sound rude or immediately sound like I'm assuming bad faith, but this report to me seems to me be in bad faith itself. First off, the links the user has provided of "attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page" are the exact same diffs as the edit warring/3rr warning, the user has not attempted to discuss the change. Secondly, they warned me of 3rr on my first revert within a 24 hour period: [43], previous revert was 48 hours previously. After I pointed out that per brd it was on them to discuss and gain consensus a brand new account comes in accusing me of violating 3rr on the second revert within the 24 hour period [44]. I have opened a Sockpuppet investigation into this here: [[45]]. the user has accused me of deliberately using my "IP address to fool the 3rr procedure" in reality, I was on my phone and it had logged my out and I was about to go to bed so in tiredness forgot to re-log in again, even if I had deliberately logged out that would have been the third revert within a 24 hour period and not a violation of 3rr. Further they themselves appear to not have been logged in for reverts on the 30th March: [46] and 31st March: [47]

When taking all of this into account it is hard for me to see this report as a good faith report, rather to me it seems like an attempt to get out of discussing by trying to get the opponent blocked. I do admit that I could have handled it better at the start by trying to get the user to discuss it after the second revert on the 25th March. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this whole thing is about one sentence about an Israeli (which, of course, isn't located within Europe) born and raised soccer player, that this user Lavalizard101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem very keen to revert each and evrytime, and even use a different IP user to try to "fool" the WP:3RR system and the admins. All of that even after I was trying to warn him twice via his own talk page, as well as via the Edit Summaries. He is aware that the source (ynet, a major israeli news outlet) is reliable, he just like his triggerhappily reverts not-to-be-messed-around by other editors, no matter how much time and effort to put in their contributions.

And the sentence that he removed, including the more inclusive version of it to try to make him see that it DOES matter to the subject:

He also holds a Portuguese passport, which eased his move to European football leagues. ([48])

diff [49] (wikilinks and text designs are just for this showcase, as you can see)

Also, keep in mind that this non-European soccer player is currently playing for a Spanish football club, and prior to that he played for an Austrian team, so that's why it's so damn important and 100% mention-worthy.

Maybe he is not aware that Austria, Spain, and even Portugal are European countries, whereas Israel is not and thus its expatriates often need to acquire a European passport, via their grandparents' ancestry, in order to play (and work) there as non-foreign players.

Thank you for your consideration and time, any admin who reads this. Sheanus (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to warn him twice via his own talk page is this you admitting to abusing multiple accounts? Because you only warned me once, the other warning came from another account. And again with the accusation of deliberate misuse of an IP to fool the WP:3rr system which I addressed above. Also I said it was on you to gain a consensus for your change and rather than take it to the article talk page you came straight to the edit warring noticeboard. It seems very hypocritical of you to claim that I am seem very keen to revert each and evrytime triggerhappily reverts not-to-be-messed-around by other editors when you yourself after being told its on you to gain consensus resorted to reporting to this noticeboard rather than even attempt to discuss. Your behaviour above (to me) reads even more like an attempt to get out of discussing by trying to get the opponent (me) blocked. I also note you didn't mention that another editor has removed the information (after they added it back in) making it not just me who has removed the information.

Pinging @StellarNerd: who edited the article afterwards for their opinion on this matter. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

And thought as much, Sheanus is now blocked for socking. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User:43.241.64.141 reported by User:Storchy (Result: Blocked 3.5 days)

Page: Mahesh Babu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 43.241.64.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]
5. [55]
6. [56]
7. [57]
8. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [61]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 3.5 days Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Naaaina reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Warned)

Page: Kunal Karan Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Naaaina (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 14:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC) to 14:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 14:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC) to 13:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 13:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Television */"
   2. 13:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC) to 11:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 11:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC) to 17:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Television */"
   2. 17:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Established actor (2019-Present) */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 04:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC) to 04:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 04:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Established actor (2019-Present) */"
   2. 04:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Television */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kunal Karan Kapoor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps changing the MOS, not to mention disregard of MOS:CAPS. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Naaaina is warned. The next time they make a style revert against the recommendation of the WP:MOS without first getting consensus on the talk page they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:2A01:4C8:1560:CCC:1:1:462B:36A0 reported by User:Pavlov2 (Result: )

Page: Dyson (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A01:4C8:1560:CCC:1:1:462B:36A0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 18:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 18:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 17:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dyson (company)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Please stop edit war! */ new section"

Comments:

• Add Chawa618 to this as this is clearly an account created to continue the edit war. — Czello 18:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Chawa618 (at his talkpage) seems to be promising to continue edit warring, once page is unprotected. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• It is a very complicated case, more than four IP users have engaged in these edit wars with +4 and -4 Pavlov2 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a very simple case. A person with an IP address that geolocates to the U.K. thinks that the article should say one thing, four other people, two with accounts, and two with IP addresses that locate to Singapore and Korea, think that the article should say another. And the article has cycled back and forth between the 2 states 12 times in 24 hours. The article has been protected and I've revoked the editing privileges of the account created specifically to further the edit war. The only question remaining is why, since there's a note in the wikitext, there is no talk page discussion of this point that could have been pointed to. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text#Inappropriate uses for hidden text. Uncle G (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

    Dyson as a company is British. Yes, operations of its "Global HQ" moved to another country in 2019 however its founders, registered offices and facilities remain in the UK.

    The fact that Wikipedia is stating Dyson as "Singaporean" is false. At least, it should be Anglo-Singaporean. Rather than one or the other.

    Please review this. Sola8273 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Update Chawa618 and 2A01:4C8:1560:CCC:1:1:462B:36A0 left some disruptive messages on my talk page.[62] Not the worst but clearly WP:NOTHERE behaviour. — Czello 20:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Gary0987 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is clearly another sock based on this[63] and this[64] — Czello 22:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Add Sola8273 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) to the list of socks based on his recent disruptive edits. — Czello 13:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I filed a SPI against them. seemingly terrible if more sleepers become active Pavlov2 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

More complex than before... Pavlov2 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:10B8:A20:8D9B:EE89:26C2:1147 reported by User:Dizzyflamingo (Result: )

Page: Eastern Front (World War I) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:1700:10B8:A20:8D9B:EE89:26C2:1147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 05:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 05:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 05:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 04:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Eastern Front (World War I)."
2. 05:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Eastern Front (World War I)."
3. 05:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Eastern Front (World War I)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Result */ new section"

Comments:

User:SReader65 reported by User:Unknown152438 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Star Awards 2022 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SReader65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11:04, 3 April 2022]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11:04, 3 April 2022]
2. [14:54, 21 March 2022]
3. [14:49, 21 March 2022]
4. [14:43, 21 March 2022]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16:03, 22 March 2022]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12:49, 23 March 2022]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15:32, 3 April 2022]

Comments: Persistent deletion of content at the Star Awards 2022 page, further actions should be taken seriously. (Unknown152438 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC))

• 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) 16:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User:IagoHughes reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: Blocked for 7 days)

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

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]
5. [70]
6. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [74]

Comments:
Persistent refusal of apparently new editor to respond to advice on editing practice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Multiple editors have made multiple attempts to engage with this, newish, user across numerous articles, and on their Talk page. But they are just not listening. Unfortunately, the problem is wider than the Owain Glyndŵr page, as can be seen from their edit history. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• The user is also since yesterday edit-warring this edit at the article on Wales, including after posting of this report. See [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]. DeCausa (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for 7 days - that's a lot of edit-warring and WP:IDHT. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User:68.134.33.80 reported by User:Wizzito (Result: Semi)

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

User being reported: 68.134.33.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC) "Fixed a typo, removed false content"
2. 20:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC) "Removed an opinion statement that had no bearing on factual info"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Claims that the claim in the article that he is considered a pioneer of trap metal is "an opinion" and "false content". wizzito | say hello! 21:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Unbh and User:GustavoCza reported by User:Iggy the Swan (Result: Unbh and GustavoCza are warned)

Page: Jonny Buckland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Will Champion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Unbh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and GustavoCza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jonny Buckland - Previous version reverted to: 22 March 2021 version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [87]

Will Champion - Previous version reverted to: 27 March version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [88]
2. [89]
3. [90]
4. [91]

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

Comments:

Between Unbh and GustavoCza, there have been countless reverts going on in Coldplay related article, the diffs above refer to some of many edits where one user adds and the other reverts, each of those happened earlier than today, those are examples of the problem which is still ongoing. I prefer not to be involved in any editing of these articles myself and say which one is the better version. Once of them, Unbh, has been blocked earlier this year for violating 3RR once already. I did report a smaller version, about half the size of the one at the start of the month but it was archived without any result given. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason why this happened was because Unbh insisted in removing information from the lead. After all this mess we did kind of reached a consensus thought, the pages are rather stable right now and I hope I don't run into trouble with them again. --GustavoCza (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved observer. Unbh appears to be in the right with regard to content and policy. With this edit, GustavoCza uses a primary source YouTube video to add "wise owl", which is only sourced to the band, not third party media assessments. The media tell the reader that Buckland is described as "the wise one" by his bandmates on their MySpace page, but it isn't so important that it should be added to the lead section, because nobody else uses that description. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you persist in reporting this Iggy. There was no action last time, because it was resolved after an iterative process on edits and discussion on the talk pages, and again that's what's happened here. GustavoCza and I have disagreements about what should go in the ledes in these articles, but on each occasion we've come to a reasonable consensus as Gustavo says above. You also did not properly inform me of this report, just an unclear reply about the last one. Your last one wasn't archived too early, it was archived because it was just not responded to because it was clearly as unnecessary then as it is now.

I should add that I don't see any need for or advocate any sanction on GustavoCza here either- the process worked - we've come to an agreement on this bit, even if it did need a lot of edits to get there.Unbh (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: This is a ridiculous number of reverts. Both User:Unbh and User:GustavoCza are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again in the next month at either Jonny Buckland or Will Champion without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Iamnayil reported by User:Premeditated Chaos (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: History of Inuit clothing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iamnayil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1080958746 - user made 3 edits adding an unnecessary summary, this is the final version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1080987742 - first revert despite my comment in the edit summary
2. Special:Diff/1081029505 - second revert despite a message on their talk page
3. Special:Diff/1081031889 - third revert despite a second message on their talk page, which they blanked entirely before making this revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1081029901 - diff including both my messages; Special:Diff/1081029901, their response was to blank without acknowledgement

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, user blanking their own talk page unlikely to communicate on article talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1081033377

Comments:
I can't understand what this person is up to and they've made no other edits anywhere. Normally I would just block for disruptive editing but I feel I'm involved by way of having written the article entirely and getting it to GA, so for transparency, I thought it best to get someone else's eyes on it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

As a side note, they tried to blank this page and then blanked their own talk page when I asked them not to do that and asked them again to communicate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:AdrianHObradors (Result: page protected)

Page: History of chemical warfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "Source does not call this "chemical warfare" (because that would be ridiculous). Trying to put this on the same level as the use of sarin or chlorine gas is extremely offensive. Last warning."
2. 00:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "you restore this idiotic nonsense one more time, this is getting reported"
3. 22:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Russo-Ukrainian War */ freaking ridiculous POV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine."
2. 01:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC) on History of chemical warfare "Undid revision 1081050934 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Please explain reasons for undo at talk page. Thanks"

Comments:

User commented on the talk page only after making the third revert.

User also breaks repeatedly 3RR on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and fails to adhere to NPOV. AdrianHObradors (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

1. This is not a 3RR violation.

2. The content and context REALLY needs to be looked at so I'm glad that AdrianHobradors brought that here. My edit summaries address the problem. Another user, User:XavierGreen tried to add the claim to the article that two Russian soldiers getting food poisoning from eating some pies is ... "chemical warfare". Of course the source they provided did not say that at all (because that would be ridiculous). So right there you have misrepresentation of sources. I removed this stuff but then AdrianHObradors jumped in what looks like "payback" for the dispute we're having at another article [93]. AdrianHobradors reverted twice. They did not initiate discussion on talk (though I did [94]). Since AdrianHObradors kept restoring text which falsely misrepresents the source, they are at fault for the same policy violation as the original editor who tried to add this material.

3. Frankly, this kind of edit is highly offensive. It's blatantly POV and it tries to put food poisoning on the same level as use of sarin gas or chlorine gas or similar actual real "chemical warfare". It looks very much like a WP:NOTHERE attempt to create false (and unsourced) "Ukraine is using chemical weapons!" narrative. That in itself is probably worth a topic ban in itself.

WP:BOOMERANG please. Volunteer Marek 01:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems a bit dishonest that you are calling a death by poison "food poisoning". Two persons died and 28 others are in the hospital.

And I jumped in not because of payback, I don't want to have any dispute. Only because I saw someone saying his edits were getting reverted, I went to his contributions, and I saw your revert which only said "freaking ridiculous POV". After checking the content and checking the page, which talks about poisoning food supplies as chemical warfare at the beginning, I decided to reinstate it.

Also you did initiate discussion on talk, but I did tell you to please do so in my edit (as it can be seen above). Mostly because your edit descriptions were not really descriptions, and closer to threats and insults.

To your third point, the text did not put poisoning of food on any level or compare it, and did not say "Ukraine is using chemical weapons", but that civilians in Ukraine did. The only POV I want is a neutral one. AdrianHObradors (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

AdrianHObrados can continued the edit war just now [95] after filing this report. They also falsely claimed that another user agreed with the restoration on talk page (Edit summary: Added back after 3O on talk page agrees.). This is completely untrue. Presumably the other user's comment on talk page is this one which pretty clearly states: "I don't believe the inclusion is WP:DUE". This is becoming even more disruptive, especially given the over the top POV nature of the edit. Can we please get a boomerang here already? Volunteer Marek 01:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Actively monitoring the page for continued disruption... —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

And the disruption continues [96] though this times by the other user XavierGreen. Note that both users are restoring what is essentially a falsification of sources since the source does NOT say this was an instance of a "chemical warfare". Additionally the article is explicit about the fact that this was done by civilians not as part of any military operation. Volunteer Marek 02:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Extra info Sorry, didn't have time to add the ones at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine:

1. [97] "tag is spurious and false, but we don't even need WaPo here"
2. [98] "no, these are obviously highly POV changes, they are not supported by sources and frankly, given the nature of this topic the changes amount to some very problematic and disruptive attempts to whitewash some horrendous shit"
3. [99] "Undid revision 1081029753 by Anonimu (talk) you REALLY need to stop with this awful POV and white washing"
4. [100] "undo the obvious POVing and obnoxious attempts at whitewashing"

-- AdrianHObradors (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Adrian, you really need to stop digging. First you start an edit war, by restoring content with false sources. Then you continue the edit war while this report is open. Then, when it becomes clear that you're behaving disruptively you try to deflect by bringing up a different article, and a dispute in which you weren't involved in. In this instance you falsely portray an edit that actually wasn't a revert and that addressed a user's objection (the one with the edit summary "but we don't even need WaPo here"). So in addition to violating WP:TEND, WP:EDITWAR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR you're now doing a pretty good job of WP:BATTLEGROUND. I suggest you drop the stick and be grateful you haven't gotten blocked yet. Volunteer Marek 03:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Volunteer Mark, I am not warring or edit warring with anyone. I am just reverting unconstructive edits I see on Wikipedia. See current talk page of History of chemical warfare for an example of constructive discussions. You can also look at the edits by BilledMammal there, with descriptive summaries, for an example of good and constructive additions. And the article I brought wasn't a different one, I referred to it on the initial report.

Also I don't understand why you removed the source that was open and left the one that was under paywall? Only because it said "The post could not verify those claims"? I am really wondering why you added back the unverified stuff I removed here in line 164, the part about mining the bodies, but not only that, you removed a {{subscription required}} tag and a {{verify source}}. Are you telling me you can't really see how disruptive your edits are?

I actually go and invest my time trying to verify the sources, many of which are very long, and carefully edit the articles if I confirm the sources don't back it up (like, in this example, where the Washington Post said "The Post could not verify those claims").

Then you go ahead and make huge reverts calling it POV and whitewashing and call it a day. Please, try to be more careful in the future. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@AdrianHObradors: you have filed an inaccurate report about another editor; it is probably you who should be more careful. Cheers, SN54129 10:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Serial Number 54129, I will be more careful if I make any future reports. I did read Volunteer Marek's contributions and the Edit Warring page and it did seem correct to report it. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, sorry, could you specify where my report is inaccurate? I believe it might have been incomplete, but not inaccurate. I did say "repeatedly" though, on the report, I have striked that, as it was a typo. Meant to says user makes repeated reverts and breaks 3RR, they did not break it repeatedly. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@AdrianHObraors: You are involved in a content dispute. In the spirit of WP:AGF, I don't think any edits on the article are unconstructive. By definition, that means you are edit warring, since you are repeatedly reverting to your preferred position in a content dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @C.Fred, I think I understand what you mean, but I have no preferred position on the content from that article, and the reverts I performed weren't to content created by me, but to another user's content. I reverted it only because Volunteer Marek's revert summaries did not actually reflect the changes done to the article, and I invited him to discuss them on the talk page.

Although as I said I do understand how it could classify as edit warring. I am actually quite new to editing Wikipedia and really enjoying it, and while I believe my understanding of English is quite good, it isn't my first language, so please, I do welcome any advice and any concrete examples of the violations Volunteer Marek mentions, so it does not happen again. Thank you --AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I went and put the page under full protection. At least two other editors have dived into the dispute head-first. At this point, we all need to use the talk page and WP:DR to solve the problem. Reverting repeatedly is not how we solve problems. --Jayron32 12:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:2001:4455:30b:6c00:494b:9834:a835:157c reported by User:Bsoyka (Result: Page protected)

Page: Jay Garrick (Arrowverse) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: While these are different IP addresses, they are in the same /64 range, so they can be assumed to be the same person:

• 2001:4455:30b:6c00:b9ed:1f25:f9f1:f4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:4455:30b:6c00:e5e5:3906:820:3691 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:4455:30b:6c00:fc40:12ee:915f:4bc4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:4455:30b:6c00:494b:9834:a835:157c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:10, April 2
2. 00:19, April 3
3. 10:01, April 3
4. 13:27, April 3
5. 02:45, April 4
6. 02:45, April 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None, from what I can find

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but some very short comments in the article history

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 157c 4bc4 3691 f4

Comments:
I'm coming into this as a neutral reporter with no edits on the article; this was mentioned off-wiki by someone patrolling and I looked into it. Regardless of actual notability of this subject, continuously reverting between a redirect and an actual article solves nothing and needs to stop. Bsoyka (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I am the same IP, but the only thing I reverted is because these users who reverted didn't provided any edit summary, like whats the point + it fails WP:GNG. If only people uses edit summaries, we wouldn't be here already. 2001:4455:30B:6C00:2570:6221:519:B465 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The notability of the article and the lack of edit summaries aren't the point here. (And if they were, it could be noted that half of the reverts linked above give no explanation of why they were done.) Regardless of whether the subject is notable enough for a standalone article, you were edit warring, which is never the right way to resolve a dispute. I recommend reading over WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Bsoyka (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected Though I'll note that IP editor appears to be "right" in making the page a redirect, please do not edit war. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Valorantexile reported by User:MoJieCPD (Result: )

Page: Cherry blossom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC) to 02:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 02:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "MISLEADING"
   2. 02:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "CHINESE TROLLS always wants everything associated with china, Well not everyone believe their BS.

PHEW I will not be surprised if they also mention china in the origin of the moon.:D"

1. Consecutive edits made from 20:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC) to 20:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 20:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC) to 12:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 12:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
2. 03:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

@Invasive Spices has left a massage to resolve this, but @Valorantexile didn't respond. MoJieCPD (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:Ficaia (Result: )

Page: Lois Baxter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarnetteD (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. [diff] (1)
2. [diff] (2)
3. [diff] (3)
4. [diff] (4)

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [101]

Comments:

User:MarnetteD reported by User:Ficaia (Result: )

Page: Susan Lynch
User being reported: MarnetteD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] (1)
2. [diff] (2)
3. [diff] (3)
4. [diff] (4)

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [103]

Comments: P.S. I know I've filled this out wrong. I'm not a technical person. But the recent page history demonstrates the issue.

User:JP7i1-u reported by User:Oknazevad (Result: )

Page: WPA World Eight-ball Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JP7i1-u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [105]
2. [106]
3. [107]
4. [108]
5. [109]
6. [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Revival

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [112]

Comments:

I hate dragging people to the drama boards, but this one is particularly frustrating. With the recent announcement that this tournament is returning, I began an overhaul of the article, removing outdated material about the last abortive attempt to restart it (announced but ultimately not held in 2017), removing unsourced material purporting to describe the tournament format, and other general cleanup. I was immediately reverted with no explanation by an editor making what is supposedly their first ever edit. Every subsequent attempt to continue working on the article by myself and Dmoore5556 (who added an infobox) have been blanket reverted without discussion or justification. It's also pretty obvious there's socking going on here as well; in another pool-related item I added sourced mention of the Fargo Rate system used to rank pool players to Elo rating system (as Fargo Rate is a variant on an Elo rating), and lo and behold, it was reverted by someone making their first edit with a similar edit summary. Curiously suspicious. oknazevad (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Please be aware of the following:

1

2

3

4

5

6

Oknazevad is clearly having a joke when accusing me of "edit warring" when they know that: 1) they are solely responsible for my need to restore the encyclopedic information, ie. involved in the edit war themselves, 2) they started it when removing over 1k of perfectly sourced material without any discussion or consensus. It's pure POV pushing because something (and I don't know what) that did or didn't happen in 2017 makes them personally uncomfortable, and so they behave in this unreasonable manner. I believe the communkity should not tolerate this and Oknazevad should be topic banned from any subject relating to international sports as they clearly have no valid contribution to make. --JP7i1-u (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Based sogdian reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Avicenna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Based sogdian (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. [113]
2. [114]
3. [115]
4. [116]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Based Sogdian has chosen not to engage in discussion on the talk page.

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

Comments:

User:Based sogdian has chosen to change "Persian" to "Tajik" ignoring what the sources state and add the Tajik language version of Avicenna. Their first addition of this was at 09:30, 5 April 2022 and was reverted by Iskandar323. Based sogdian's first revert was at 12:17, 5 April 2022, followed by 3 more reverts. Based sogdian has not engaged on the talk page therefore we can only guess what their motives are. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Based sogdian and Based.Khurasani indefinitely blocked as socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Scimernet reported by User:Loafiewa (Result: )

Page: .50 BMG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and various other ammunition articles)
User being reported: Scimernet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [119] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]
4. [123]
5. [124]
6. [125]
7. [126]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [127] (4th revert in 24 hours)

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

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

Comments:
Additionally Scimernet seems to be making the same changes universally to other ammunition articles - I only have three watched, but those have had the same changes applied to them. These changes have been reverted by other editors, only for Scimernet to reinsert, using the edit summary of "The unit of measure is Caliber not inches. Caliber is a unit "based" on inches; it is not designated as a measurement of inches. Refer to the definition of caliber. Caliber is expressed in hundredths or thousands of an inch depending on the number of digits. When referring to cartridges or bullets the units used are caliber. This would be expressed without any leading decimal. This is correct, it does not need consensus or collaboration this needs to be fixed on all Caliber pages" (my emphasis)

• .308 Winchester

1. [130]
2. [131]
3. [132]

• .45 ACP

1. [133]
2. [134]

• .44 Magnum

1. [135]
2. [136]

Ammunition is not my forte, but this widespread changing of articles without gaining consensus and going against article titles, needs addressing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:142.105.159.178 reported by User:Wallnot (Result: No violation per WP:BLANKING)

Page: User talk:142.105.159.178 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Template:142.105.159.178

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff
7. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

Comments:

Special:Contributions/142.105.159.178 has been editing warring across a number of pages, largely refusing to engage on articles’ talk pages. They’ve just broken WP:3RR by reverting four times a static IP template that had been placed on their talk page (the IP seems to be static based on the geo locate tool), with explanation and reference to the guideline at WP:UP. Though it’s not expressly against policy, and it hasn't been directed at me since I haven’t engaged with them much in their ~5mo edit history, I would add that their edit summaries are extremely patronizing (e.g., pay attention :)) and overall indicative of a bad attitude.

Note that, though the warning I linked concerned edit warring on an article talk page, not on the IP's talk page, the Thewolfchild subsequently warned the IP that they had violated 3RR on their own talk page and encouraged them to revert their last revert. The IP responded to that suggestion by reverting Thewolfchild again, and then reverting an additional message from Thewolfchild. diff

Note also that, though this is the only 3RR violation I observed, this IP has been edit warring/reverting without discussion across a number of other pages. I've included diffs below.

Guardians of the Galaxy (soundtrack) diff diff diff

First Lady of the United States diff diff diff

Where the IP does post on talk pages, they tend not to address the content issues at hand, instead making accusations of bad faith and ownership using the same patronizing tone as in their edit summaries. e.g., Buddy, you've got to let go. You started this article and you've been its primary editor, but you don't own it. You obviously think you do, but you don't. diff

UPDATE: the IP reverted the notice of edit warring report I left on their talk page, describing it as vandalism. Wallnot (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• No violation Per WP:BLANKING, users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages, however rudely they go about it, as long as they accept that it will be assumed they read them. They might actually have a case against you. And, yes, I agree the IP's behavior has not been exemplary. But maybe this is better handled at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  The removal in question was of a template required to be placed on their page by the guideline at WP:UP, not a warning. Such templates are an explicit exception to WP:BLANKING: "For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address" cannot be removed. I'm also not sure how they have a case against me; I've performed only two reverts on their talk page. Wallnot (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)