Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

    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.

    User:76.88.55.135 reported by User:Fma12 (Result: Declined)

    edit

    Page: RIMAC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 76.88.55.135 (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
    2. diff
    3. diff

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (none provided)

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

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

    Comments:

    Reverted all my edits made on November 30, alleging "spelling mistakes". I tried to talk to him explaining that changes involved not only spelling but other modifications, but he erased my message at his talk page. He also refuses to open a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fma12 (talkcontribs) 22:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    My reply. I am user 76.88.55.135 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.55.135 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Please don't assume my pronouns are he/him. I am the IP user. Not sure how to reply here. The user made an edit filled with non-constructive and spelling error ridden changes. Various typos, formatting issues, etc. Then insists on maintaining it even after a request for an explanation of the reversion was given. User expects others to clean up after themself. Changed California to CA unnecessarily, listed UC San Diego incorrectly per its style guide, (it is never "University of California, SD") "Abbreviated" was spelled wrong. Mistakes to the links had brackets in text from source editor. Just to name a few mistakes in the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.55.135 (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    On the contrary, my edits were completely constructive and in good faith. They include upading the official website, a commons template addition, images alignment, paramethers added to the infobox, among others. But this anon editor just erased them all, instead of fixing the spelling mistakes he seems to be so worried about.
    I don't expect other "clean up" mistakes as he wrongly says, I just expect edits not to be completely reverted when some of the changes are useful. Furthermore, I expect this userdoes not remove all the lines I wrote on his talk page in search of consensus. This user seems to act in a capricious manner, unwilling to reach an agreement or, at least, be able to discuss. Fma12 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Given the large amount of mistakes I am not confident that other parts of the edit were constructive, if someone else wants to align images and add "paramethers", they can. You can't expect an edit to not be reverted when a large part of it consists of mistakes, then tell others to fix them because some of the edit was constructive. You sent me a message in broken English via my talk page. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Also, they are not just "spelling mistakes" you made. It is in bad faith to claim that they are minor edits that could be made to an otherwise "constructive" edit, when in fact the edit is riddled with offenses. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Which is not "constructive" at all is your attitude. I'm not a native English speaker and of course I can commit mistakes but at least, I can make myself understood in another language, I doubt you can write one word in Spanish without using a translator. You insist on "mistakes" which you have not specified until now. Writing "University of California, SD" is a so serious mistake to revert an entire list of changes? That's what you're referring about?
    You are talking about "offenses", do you read what you state? "offensive" is your behaviour, trying to disqualify me as editor just because my native language is not English. That sounds so ridiculous. You should take a look at Wikipedia:Civility, that probably fix your manners and teach you a bit of respect. Fma12 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I am half Mexican and have lived in Tijuana... Bringing up only "University of California, SD" is a cherry picking fallacy. That is one of the many parts of the edit that was non-constructive. Claiming that that is the serious mistake that made me revert "an entire list of changes" is just misleading. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It simply comes down to the fact that you made an edit filled with egregious mistakes, and are upset that it got reverted. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, you are confused. I'm not upset because of the reversion, in fact I'm not even upset. It was me who decided to stop with this non-sense reverting because you had refused to discuss blanking your talk page so you did not leave me another option.
    You have been claiming I did "many non-constructive edits" but the only part you cited is University of California, SD (which I don't consider a so serious error, unlike you). Now, could you please detail the "eggregious mistakes" in my edits? Until now, You wrote a lot without saying anything concrete. At least, try to find a justification to your reversions and make this discussion more interesting. Fma12 (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    By the way, you reverted an edit that updated the official website from this to this (the current website), among other disruptions. Do you think this is a "constructive" edit? Fma12 (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I already listed multiple mistakes in your edit here and on the article's page. Now that is twice you have cherry picked that one. Your edits are vandalism to me given how the page appeared after your edits, which is why I believe immediate reversions were warranted. Thank you for catching that. I'm happy to revert my own edits when someone points out a mistake. Goodbye. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, you just pointed out a mistake in your own edit LOL. The first is the home page for UCSD Recreation. You tried to change it to an essay article about LionTree Arena, an arena WITHIN the complex that the article is about. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, it was not a mistake, I know the LionTree is a basketball arena, but the website includes description of all the facilities there. You not only could justify your reversions, but also ruined several important changes like the one I described above.
    And finally: before talking about "vandalism", check out what the term means so the only "vandalic", disruptive, and non-collaborative edits have been yours, not mine.
    I hope an admin take the best decission. Fma12 (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I hope an admin makes the best decision as well. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Fma12, why Special:Diff/1261032897? Specific errors had been pointed out and you restored them? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    76.88.55.135, the editing policy's section about trying to fix problems and the policy against edit warring apply even when reverting the introduction of errors unless they're obvious vandalism, and the edits you have reverted are not vandalism, so you have edit warred. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Both, the content removed in Special:Diff/1261055417 as well as the edit summary of the removal are uncivil. It is also inappropriate to respond to uncivil remarks with "that probably fix your manners and teach you a bit of respect", as such advice is highly unlikely to lead to the allegedly intended result.
    If your interactions continue to look like this, they will probably lead to a block sooner or later, not for edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @ToBeFree I have been in WP for 18 years and that kind of interactions with other editors were very few. That reply came after some unappropriate coments that the anon IP left on the edit summary, even referring to my English writting, which was totally unnecessary. I tried to reach a consensus but he erased all the messages I left on his talk. I am anything but uncivil, but I don't like to deal with this kind of users, even less when they are anonymous. Fma12 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Fma12, you're not required to deal with anyone (WP:DISENGAGE, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, and in case someone persistently messages you after a request not to, WP:Harassment). However, you chose to interact with this person by reverting article content to a state that had been pointed out to you as containing errors. That is not really an option. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, i'll keep that in mind for future occssions. I do not feel comfortable in this kind of discusions so I prefer to focus on editing articles. Fma12 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User:Dickenseditor reported by User:Raladic (Result: blocked for a month for persistent tendentious editing)

    edit

    Page: The Heritage Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1261049873 by Raladic (talk) You"
    2. 16:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1260978986 by Rhododendrites (talk)"
    3. 16:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "This has been discussed by numerous users. One reporter form the "NYT" does not a consensus make. It would be ludicrous to add in, randomly, what every reporter from every newspaper thinks about the THF. there is no consensus from news outlets that they're spreading false info. Use talk page if you have more data."
    4. 17:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "1) Added context --- one journalist at the NYT (which has officially endorsed Kamala Harris) suggested that Heritage spread misinformation. 2) Removed subjective language (i.e., the word "credible," shows the original author's bias, not general consensus)"

    Also on another article (Twelve Tribes communities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in parallel:

    1. 23:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1261045211 by Cambial Yellowing --- please use talk page if you feel the need to add in this language."
    2. 22:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Do not edit to fit your narrative --- use talk page if you need to vent. Edit wars are against Wikipedia guidelines. (Some suggested I "feel passionately" about this haha . . . your beliefs about my feelings (weird to even say) don't dictate facts."
    3. 22:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1260989559 by M.boli"
    4. 17:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "removed biased language"



    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war." by @Cambial Yellowing
    2. 23:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 23:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Dickenseditor "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

    Comments:

    User has been blanking and removing details left and right in multiple articles based on their personal WP:POV. They have been warned twice within the past 24 hours (blanking the warning in between) of potential edit warring and just ignored it and now went over the bright-line, so it appears they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but just to cause disruption based on their personal POV. Raladic (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    All but one of these were explained, in detail. There is not a pattern of " unexplained content removal," and you personally attempted to revert all my edits. Further, I answered all your requests on my talk page in-context. Cheers (Redacted). Dickenseditor (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, explanations for removals need to be valid and not made repeatedly. You have been reverted by multiple separate editors and yet continued to re-instate what you believe is right. You claimed there is a consensus to remove this on the talk page, but there isn't, there is an ongoing thread in which an admin, @Doug Weller tried to explain policies with regards to attributed text to you, but you removing the text you disagree with again despite having been warned to stop doing so is a violation of our 3-revert rule as the warning warned you about. Raladic (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Others were warned (by multiple editors, other than me) not to continue to insert biased, unclear, language w/o citation or attempting to cherry-pick information (as was the case of the THF article), and yet other editors continued to revert; again, multiple editors warning others about repeated attempts to bias the language. See Talk pages in all instances. Cheers. Dickenseditor (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    See Talk pages in all instances. You’ve not engaged at talk at Twelve Tribes communities – at all – despite reverting multiple other editors to your preferred version. Cambial foliar❧ 10:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I didn't realize you were talking about TTC. . . the main subject appeared to be THF article, or the sex assignment/discernment long discussion. There was even a discussion about Hugh Jackman. I honestly didn't think TTC was all that controversial haha, but you are correct, that is one that I didn't see the Talk page on. On Hugh Jackman, btw, if that was part of the issue, you'll notice I actually agreed and noted my own error. Dickenseditor (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Also, just because I'm going to assume you were acting in good faith, I reverted my own edits in the THF article (where I assume you were most upset about). Edits were made that (somewhat) addressed mine and other editors concerned, so I left those in. Hopefully, this alleviates your concern and stops the babysitting. Cheers. Dickenseditor (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In general, we treat consecutive uninterrupted edits as a single revert for purposes of WP:3RR, and both this self-reversion over 4 edits at the former this set of two edits at the latter would render the user at 3 reverts on both. This isn't great behavior, but I don't see a bright-line 3RR violation here. @Raladic: Is either The Heritage Foundation or Twelve Tribes communities under 1RR, or is this just a standard set of articles?
    That the user self-reverted at The Heritage Foundation makes me a bit hesitant to p-block from it, since they at least now seem to be taking it to the relevant talk page. Blocks are meant to prevent future disruption and I don't see any WP:STATUSQUO gaming; the editor appears to be engaging. That being said, I don't see a self-revert at the end for the Twelve Tribes article, nor engagement on talk. I would sternly remind Dickenseditor to take their concerns to the talk page rather than reverting again; if the edit warring on that article continues again and you don't try to gain consensus on the talk, I'd expect at least a partial block from editing that article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Their recent edits at Talk:Sex assignment might also be worth looking at. They unnecessarily revived a dead thread and wasted people's time. There seems to be a pattern of provocation and sealioning here. Whether it is intentional I wouldn't like to say. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This was, clearly, an ongoing discussion (and one that I missed, initially, then contributed to, once found). Many people disagreed (hence why the topic was sooo long). To say "we're done, no more discussion," is tantamount to dictatorial rule. Dickenseditor (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'll add their edits at Matt Gaetz which are plain and simple POV pushing. If it was not for this thread, since there's already 4 warnings, I might've reported to AIV. win8x (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I actually went to AIV first to save time of this clear disruption caused by the user, but since it wasn't technical vandalism, it was declined by @Bbb23. As I noted in the thread, sometimes it feels like we need a board that's somewhere between ANI/3RR and AIV for clear cases of disruption like this that don't serve the encyclopedia. But alas we're here now, though it looks like based on @Red-tailed hawk's comments that maybe I should have gone to ANI instead of 3RR unless an admin decides to take all of these reports from multiple users as a collective and just steps in instead of us having to go from board to board. Raladic (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm leaning towards the view that they are being intentionally disruptive but even if they are not then it is a serious enough case of IDHT to merit sanctions. They repeatedly blank the warnings on their User Talk page without heeding them. They take every revert as an excuse to start sealioning. If we can't action that here then I fear we have to move this to ANI. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I've read all the warnings (and heeded all applicable ones; see previous self-revert). But after a while, several other fellow editors simply used them as a sign on my Talk page to justify their own feelings: "This feels disruptive, and other people feel the same."
    Remember--- assume good faith :) Dickenseditor (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I am WP:INVOLVED but wanted to say that I agree with Red-tailed hawk's assessment as well as DanielRigal's. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User:2A01:CB05:82B1:2100:454F:E599:F903:5FA8 reported by User:Nswix (Result: Blocked 1 week)

    edit

    Page: List of undefeated mixed martial artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2A01:CB05:82B1:2100:454F:E599:F903:5FA8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "EVEN ON THE PFL SITE IT'S WRITTEN 20-0 !!! Stop being stupid and open your eyes. You are nobody in MMA to be able to claim that Musaev is in 18-0 and not in 20-0 ... Really pathetic ..."
    2. 18:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "It's clearly written 20-0 on tapology with real evidence for the 2 fights in addition. But the reality is that you don't like Musaev and prefer to use a much less reliable internet site like Sherdog. You have no arguments to prove that Sherdog is a better website than Tapology but since you don't want to admit that you're wrong you will continue to re-edit the page ... This is pathetic"
    3. 17:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "I think Musav haters don't want to use Tapology ... If you have REAL arguments for using sherdog, please let's debate in "Talk""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
    2. 18:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "/* December 2024 */"
    3. 18:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
    4. 19:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Personal attacks, 3RR. Nswix (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User:112.215.154.207 reported by User:The Kip (Result: blocked 6 months)

    edit

    Page: Portal:Current events/2024 December 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 112.215.154.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 1

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 2
    2. 3
    3. 4
    4. 5
    5. 6
    6. 7
    7. 8, at same time as 3RR warning
    8. 9

    All are within the last half-hour or so, and I somewhat rushed this report, so my bad for no timestamps.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A - WP:ECR applies to this content, meaning the IP isn't even allowed to be making these edits in the first place. I'd already warned them with the CTOP alert and they kept going.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1

    Comments:
    The Kip (contribs) 03:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I've already rangeblocked; this is the same LTA on Indonesian IPs that's been edit-warring out all mention of genocide from the P:CE pages for a couple years now. I'm not decided whether it's better or worse that he's on little /23s and /24s now instead of the /12 he was on before. —Cryptic 06:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User:PowerOfFiveFan reported by User:Zendrago X (Result: )

    edit

    Page: Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 07:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "Please understand that Chhattisgarh has 11 Lok Sabha seats, NOT 10. This is very basic for anyone who has an elementary understanding in Indian politics and is not vandalism."
    2. 13:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "An earlier editor claims that "numbers can change after elections". "Numbers can only change" if there are BYE-ELECTIONS held in any seats. After the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections, bye-elections were held ONLY in two seats - Wayanad and Nanded - in both, sitting MPs were from Congress who retained them. Which means they remain at 99. Independent MPs becoming MPs from any party after election stand to be disqualified under Anti-Defection Law. If you still claim 101 MPs, please cite your sources."
    3. 13:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC) "Please refer to https://results.eci.gov.in/PcResultGenJune2024/partywiseresult-S13.htm"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Constantly restoring their edits, writing their original research (which have no facts) in the summary. Attacking personally on talk page [1]. ZDX (User) | (Contact) 09:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I am the accused user. The reporting user has constantly claimed 'vandalism' without providing any source for verification. On the contrary,I have provided my sources in the comments (and am again providing them below for judges). Despite this, the reporting user claims "Original research" without providing any verified sources. From his profile, it is clear that he is supportive towards the party in question, the Indian National Congress (hereafter: the INC) and wants to inflate their numbers in the Parliament contrary to the reality.
    Sources:
    1. https://sansad.in/ls
    This is the official website of the House of the People and the first reliable source of information. It clearly states that the INC has 99 seats in the Lok Sabha. Despite this, the reporting user claims that the INC gained 2 seats when independents joined it, but this will lead to them standing disqualified under the Anti-Defection Law of Indian Parliament.
    2. https://results.eci.gov.in/PcResultGenJune2024/partywiseresult-S13.htm
    This is the official breakup of numbers in the State of Maharashtra, that is being inflated by this user. This is the OFFICIAL website of the Election Commission of India. PowerOfFiveFan (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Please have a look at your source [2]=This is a page of election results not about the current status. These are the latest sources [3], [4]. ZDX (User) | (Contact) 09:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The heading of both your sources is misleading. If you read the article, they clearly use the phrase "extended support to the Congress". Newspapers often put such headings to create sensation.
    As for my source being outdated, please check source no.1
    It is not election results, it is the very official page of the representation im the CURRENT Lok Sabha, as of TODAY. PowerOfFiveFan (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User:Insane always reported by User:INeedSupport (Result: 1 week)

    edit

    Page: Cyclone Fengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 11:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "Please don't change I beg"
    2. 16:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC) "User:OrzonYT final warning do not change it again, THIS WILL REMAIN Or debate if you want to. Don't be a retardo"
    3. 16:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 11:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC) "INeedSupport Keep this image and for others, do not dare to change this image"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 16:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cyclone Fengal."
    2. 16:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Editing while logged out on Cyclone Fengal."
    3. 17:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC) "/* December 2024 */"
    4. 17:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC) "/* December 2024 */"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Image for Infobox */ new section"

    Comments:

    This user has been constantly reverting images of Cyclone Fengal for around a week a few days. Although 3RR wasn't violated, this edit warring has been going on for too long. I've warned this user and state we must discuss this at the talk page. Apparently this warning was ignored and the user continues to revert images. User contribution shows that this user knows how to use the talk page. INeedSupport :3 14:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Forgot to mention that this user also edit wars on 2024 North Indian Ocean cyclone season for the same reason. This user also tried to use its IP to subvert 3RR rule. I'm not sure if logging out was accidental or not. This user is relatively new, so perhaps I was being a little bit too harsh here. However, seeing "retardo" makes me use a hard warning instead of a soft warning. INeedSupport :3 15:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    These IP addresses appears to be socks of User:Insane always.

    INeedSupport :3 17:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User:Msalmon and User:Jungle TV Dinners reported by User:Lavalizard101 (Result: )

    edit

    Page: I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series) series 24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Users being reported: Msalmon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Jungle TV Dinners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1261525056 by Lavalizard101 (talk) I don't understand what is difficult about what I am saying?"
    2. 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Results and elimination */ the results table has always been where the celebrities have finished in the public vote NOT overall"
    3. 11:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "the table is for results of the PUBLIC VOTE not where they finished overall"
    4. 10:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1261489033 by Lavalizard101 (talk) what are you on about, Oti was immune from the public vote so it is out of 7 not 8"
    5. 07:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Results and elimination */ no as only 7 of them faced the public vote as Oti is immune remember"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 11:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Oti immunity */"
    2. 11:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Oti immunity */"

    Comments:

    Continued edit warring despite requesting to open a discussion at the talk page. User has been slighlty uncivil with remarks about I don't understand what is difficult about what I am saying. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Note that the user has acknowledged this report with another slightly uncivil remark go away. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have already explained to you the reason why the results table is how the celebrities are placed in the public vote and yet you don't seem to understand this. MSalmon (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    And I have explained to you that the show used to use that format but changed it, thus the table should reflect that change, which you continue to ignore. While being slightly uncivil about how I don't seem to understand this Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Added Jungle TV Dinners to the report as this user has also joined the EW and refuses to take it even acknowledge the talk page. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I've blocked Jungle TV Dinners as   Confirmed sock of ZestyLemonz.-- Ponyobons mots 18:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Reverted close as the report was originally about Msalmon, while the sock is Jungle TV Dinners, thus this hasn't actually been solved fully. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply