Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• This is a very tendentious editor. I'm not involved; I've blocked for a month. Bishonen | tålk 15:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC).

User:PowerOfFiveFan reported by User:Zendrago X (Result: No violation)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

These IP addresses appears to be socks of User:Insane always.

• User:2409:40D4:F5:E6CC:8000:0:0:0
• User:2409:40D4:153:202C:8000:0:0:0

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

• The edits and personal attacks by User:Insane always are completely unacceptable and I've blocked them, and the IPv6 /64 range that appears to be them, for 1 week.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Msalmon and User:Jungle TV Dinners reported by User:Lavalizard101 (Result: Jungle TV Dinners blocked as a sockpuppet)

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)

Note that the user has acknowledged this report with another slightly uncivil remark go away. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I've blocked Jungle TV Dinners as  Confirmed sock of ZestyLemonz.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Lavalizard101, three users, one of them a sock, have been edit warring. I'd like to see if this continues from the non-socks before taking action influenced by a sock against two highly experienced users who should know how to resolve disputes without edit warring and without administrative actions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User:50.81.237.43 reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Blocked one week)

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

User being reported: 50.81.237.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1261601596 by AntiDionysius (talk) Once again, removing unsourced undated Spam promotions. Please see the history of who is putting it back in."
2. 23:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1261599706 by Bildersindtoll (talk)ONCE AGAIN, removing SPAM VANDALISM from what had once been deemed a Spam-free Good Article being placed by an inexperienced ARTICLE OWNER who is MAKING THREATS in order to PRESERVE HIS SPAM PROMOTIONS"
3. 23:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1261594668 by Bildersindtoll (talk)ONCE AGAIN, removing SPAM VANDALISM from what had once been deemed a Spam-free Good Article being placed by an inexperienced ARTICLE OWNER who is MAKING THREATS in order to PRESERVE HIS SPAM PROMOTIONS"
4. 21:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1261575615 by Bildersindtoll (talk)ONCE AGAIN, removing SPAM VANDALISM from what had once been deemed a Spam-free Good Article being placed by an inexperienced ARTICLE OWNER who is MAKING THREATS in order to PRESERVE HIS SPAM PROMOTIONS"
5. 15:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1261523732 by Bildersindtoll (talk) ONCE AGAIN, removing SPAM VANDALISM from what had once been deemed a Spam-free Good Article being placed by an inexperienced ARTICLE OWNER"
6. 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1261513634 by Bildersindtoll (talk) ONCE AGAIN, removing SPAM VANDALISM from what had once been deemed a Spam-free Good Article being placed by an inexperience ARTICLE OWNER"
7. 02:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1246931004 by Bildersindtoll (talk) removing vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "/* December 2024 */ new section"
2. 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Ele3ctricBloom$ reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Under the Boardwalk (2023 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ele3ctricBloom$ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

7 reverts starting Nov 30 after initial change was made and very careful to not trip 3RR but it is still edit warring. EW notice is on user talk page. Article talk page has a discussion about the issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2024 (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) 17:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Ele3ctricBloom$ reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result:Blocked 24h)

Page: Under the Boardwalk (2023 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ele3ctricBloom$ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1260259307

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1260440176
2. Special:Diff/1260478863
3. Special:Diff/1260576259
4. Special:Diff/1260849310
5. Special:Diff/1261171301
6. Special:Diff/1261614717
7. Special:Diff/1261717066

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1260582771

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Under the Boardwalk (2023 film)#Runtime

Comments:

7 reverts starting Nov 30 after initial change was made and very careful to not trip 3RR but it is still edit warring. EW notice is on user talk page. Article talk page has a discussion about the issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Refiled the report to fill in missing parts. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

User:DONT MY BLOCK USER reported by User:CanonNi (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Pale Garden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: DONT MY BLOCK USER (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 06:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC) to 06:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
   1. 06:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC) "←Changed redirect target from Minecraft#Gameplay to List of Wikipedias"
   2. 06:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC) "DONT MY BLOCK USER moved page Pale Garden to Template:Pale Garden"
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC) to 06:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
   1. 06:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC) "DONT MY BLOCK USER moved page Pale Garden to Help:Pale Garden"
   2. 06:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Minecraft#Gameplay"
   3. 06:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC) "←Redirected page to List of Wikipedias"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC) to 06:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
   1. 06:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Minecraft#Gameplay"
   2. 06:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC) "DONT MY BLOCK USER moved page Pale Garden to Wikipedia:Pale Garden"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Article blanked and redirected on Pale Garden."
2. 06:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC) "/* December 2024 */ reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated attempts at creating a BLARed article, and moving it to various namespaces after edits were reverted. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked the user as NOTHERE. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Upd Edit reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: Page protected)

Page: Shahi Jama Masjid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1261756452 by Upd Edit (talk): Rv vandalism by IP with incoherent edit summaries"
2. 20:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1261703275 by Upd Edit (talk)"
3. 10:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1261675169 by Ratnahastin (talk): It might be "archaic" but has been referenced by modern scholars."
4. 19:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1261506262 by Upd Edit (talk): PLEASE DISCUSS AT THE TALK PAGE: What do you mean by better ordering? Why did you delete the additional information (documents held by the mosque-keeper, etc.) that I added?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Constant edit warring with multiple editors by this user on this article since last week[5][6] . - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is exempted; the edits I reverted removed sourced content including an entire paragraph describing Anand Ram Mukhlis' account, which is not under challenge. Additionally, it misrepresented sources by adding unverifiable descriptors like "politically aligned Hindus", "just like nearest river", "skeptic protestors", etc.

Notably, the filer is tag-teaming against me: see this (rejected) SPI report and the ongoing ANI case. Upd Edit (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You absolutely have no idea what is vandalism. Your response only proves my report. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If removing sourced content and adding misleading descriptors without edit summaries and without any engagement at the talk-page is not vandalism, we agree to disagree. That said, the trend at this page to (1) revert edits with no/misleading edit summaries, (2) not come to the talk-page despite personalized messages at their talk-page, and (3) file complaints against me (as documented by Kautilya3) is mildly amusing. Thanks, Upd Edit (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not the kind of "obvious vandalism" exempt from the edit warring policy, and it's unlikely to be vandalism at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

ToBeFree, are you sure about this? The editor hasn't crossed 3RR! The last revert might not "look like reverting vandalism", but the IP edit was modifying direct quotes with WP:OR. These are the kind of reverts that any of us might do. Applying a sanction for them seems like setting a bad precedent.

Note also this comment I wrote less than 24 hours ago, and the comment below it from PhilBerger. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya3, I didn't mean to make it look as if Upd Edit's editing was the most problematic or even the only problematic one. I'm using page protection only now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I am trying to get involved with this page as much as I can, though I am busy with other topics. I think we can sort it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)