Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

Update this page

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

---

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

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

---

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
362	363	364	365	366	367	368	369	370	371
Incidents (archives, search)
1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177	1178	1179	1180
1181	1182	1183	1184	1185	1186	1187	1188	1189	1190
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486
487	488	489	490	491	492	493	494	495	496
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page: Complete algebraic curve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UtherSRG (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]

To win the dispute, the user is even now threating a block. [7] Is this really an acceptable behavior?? I have at least tried to engage with the editor in the talkpage. (I suppose I myself technically violated 3RR. For that, I apologize. I got too emotional.) -- Taku (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG and TakuyaMurata, honestly...
What is wrong with you? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as a very first step, can we agree that the edit summary of Special:Diff/1295770220 is not factually correct? Removal of tags is vandalism, really? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I got clearly carried away (and in particular I should stopped at 3RR). But what disturbed me is an suggestion that I should be banned because I have removed a cleanup template. Is that new normal in Wikipedia that I wasn't aware of? Taku (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's from the {{uw-tdel}} template series. It's unlikely to be helpful in a dispute between two highly experienced editors and almost impossible to have been intended as a threat of the warning administrator performing a block themselves in the given situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. That explains. (I didn't think you can use a block to win a dispute.) Anyway, I think the dispute can use some intervention from outside, as UtherSRG has been so insisting. Taku (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can replace "UtherSRG has" by "we both have", it's almost a good statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, that's why we had so many reverts, and I know I should have stopped earlier. But UtherSRG's behavior should also be scrutinized, correct? Including a threat. Moreover, one editor cannot insist on a template. So, if there is a dispute on placing a template, the status quo should prevail, correct? Taku (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.
This section here is a far greater danger to UtherSRG than you. There is no need to worry about their behavior being scrutinized, with my first question being pretty stern towards them, not you.
Regarding the status quo, this is not a good rule of thumb. In general, Wikipedia places the burden of proof or the onus to obtain a consensus on those favoring inclusion of the material (WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:BLPRESTORE et cetera). If there is a debate about whether something should be in an article, a good general measure is to keep it out of the article until those who want it in have found a consensus for that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But no the dispute isn't about whether some materials should be in the article or not. I explicitly asked if there is some concern about the materials in the article and got no answer. Like said, the dispute is about placing a particular maintenance template (which in my opinion is redundant), and, if there is an objection, one editor cannot insist on it, right? Taku (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You got an answer here, and arguably in the edit summaries of [8], [9], [10] and [11]. The dispute is about whether something should be in the article, in multiple ways (references in the article, maintenance template above the article). If there is an objection, one editor – like you – cannot insist on reverting to their preferred revision again and again. There are few exceptions (WP:3RRNO) and none of them seems to apply. The main purpose of this discussion here is to evaluate whether "I have edit warred, and I have stopped, and I won't continue" is something both editors can say or if administrative action is needed to prevent it from continuing. Which would be completely absurd when two highly experienced editors have edit warred about something as unimportant as a maintenance template.

If I understand your current path of discussion correctly, you're trying to focus on the other user's misbehavior and seek confirmation about them having behaved badly. Don't worry: This is not needed. This was clear at 20:57.

I'm now mostly waiting for a reply from UtherSRG. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...which may have been delayed by a lack of notification on their talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time Taku and I have butted heads. We are often at odds with how to handle matters. I do feel that what they were doing was vandalism; if removal of maintenance tags is not vandalism, after being given information on why the tag should remain, why have the {{uw-tdel}} series of warnings? And yup, I carried things too far in my reverts; usually a 2nd revert gets things to end. I feel justified in the block warning, though. They'd previously been warned on an article talk page and that user considered that WP:CIR might be in play. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG, vandalism is defined as intentional damage; not all disruptive editing is vandalism. Trying to improve the encyclopedia by repeatedly restoring a revision is disruptive but not vandalism. It is especially not the type of obvious vandalism described at WP:3RRNO#4. The existence of a template neither allows nor forbids behavior. Having carried things too far is true but has nothing to do with how many reverts other users normally invest into an edit war with you. At the moment, my competence concerns are mostly directed towards you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can say is I acknowledge that interacting with Taku, he gets under my skin in a bad way; that I will be mindful of that and, at worst, grab someone else to deal with I what I see are erroneous actions on his part. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the block warning, as that was a fear voiced above to my understanding, could you clarify that you never intended to place a block yourself? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I would have grabbed someone else to do it. It had the intended effect of getting Taku to stop, which was my only aim. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected
  If, beyond maintenance tags, there is something disputed that should be removed until a consensus is found, please let me know (and/or click here to file an edit request). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The case is closed but just for the record, I do admit recently I have often found myself in disputes with NPP or AfC crowds. I suspect this may be due to the cultural thing. These editors tend to deal with new users, and I noticed they often just throw policies or threat blocks instead of engaging in meaningful discussions. They also tend to emphasize authorship; i.e.., they often say it is the author’s responsibility to show the notability or source the claims, which is *not* true. We as a community are responsible; e.g., how the notability is established matters not who establishes it. Similarly, a word choice like “vandalism” suggests they are not seeing me as a fellow editor. I guess that’s the core of my problem with UtherSRG. I cannot change the culture but at least it explains the situation. —- Taku (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not worthwhile to continue discussion here. Will follow up at your user talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Hi again. So, the case may not be closed after all and the page may need to be protected again (not up to me to decide, obviously). In short, I feel like a cultural crash. For example, @UtherSRG: insists on the need for citations for a simple example or simple logical consequences. That's just not true and if we insist, we can't really write math articles. I don't doubt the user has a good intentions but doesn't seem to understand how math articles are typically written. -- Taku (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC) Oh by the way, I changed my mind about the tag. If they want a win, then I can give it. I have a Ph.D. in math and my time is more valuable than spent on dealing with something so trivia like this. -- Taku (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TakuyaMurata and UtherSRG, if either of you continue to revert, I'm going to partially block you from the article. No crisis is created by leaving the article in its status quo state, and there's plenty of time to reach consensus at talk or seek dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Brain Damage (Pink Floyd song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Niceboi33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "I added a SOURCE to the genre I’ve been trying to put in. Let’s see if it gets taken down by the high and mighty."
2. 13:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC) to 13:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 13:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Brain Damage (Pink Floyd song)."
2. 13:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ + re"
3. 13:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ + re"
4. 13:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ lol"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• FlightTime Phone, I'm not sure what I'm looking at. Special:Diff/1296196636 is relatively fine but should have had an edit summary. You then ask for a source on their talk page ([12]). All good. The user adds a source, should perhaps be informed about Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#RhythmOne, is then asked for a source and reverted without an explanation ([13]) as you noticed that during the typing of your message, the content reappeared.
  You then asked a strange question ([14], why did you not add that in with your edit). In response to that message, there was one single full-revision revert that, without its edit summary, would be an acceptable response to what you wrote. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) Why do you feel an immediate level-4 warning was necessary here? That's something we typically only use after several prior warnings since it assumes bad faith. — tony 17:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, first of all there's no violation here, because two of the four diffs above were consecutive. The genre "Psychedelic rock" which FTP is reverting to, is unsourced. At least Niceboi33 attempted to source the genre, even if it doesn't (apparently) source the genre for that song. User:FlightTime Phone; I would suggest sourcing the "Psychedelic rock" genre, or that will be removed as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you Black Kite however, as I've stated many times, I'm not that concerned with content, it's the process, that I've learned in my tenure, that I apply to most of my reverts and whatever, actually I'm more concerned with Niceboi33's talk page comments. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not great, to be honest. User:Niceboi33, assuming that a song has a particular genre because the album it is taken from has a particular genre is original research (because otherwise albums that mix genres would not exist). You need to find a source saying the song is that genre. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my behavior, however I do believe this was some kind of ego thing. I sourced the genre but was angry that it was removed which led me to source it again and write a pretty scathing comment. I hope this can be resolved because I don’t think a warning like that was necessary on my part, due to this being my first edit since 2022. Niceboi33 (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is closed without action here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Wainlode Cliff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 194.233.152.122 (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 21:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC) to 21:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 21:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296251326 by LaffyTaffer (talk)"
   2. 21:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296250379 by LaffyTaffer (talk)"
2. 20:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296249303 by LaffyTaffer (talk)"
3. 20:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295904407 by LaffyTaffer (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Wainlode Cliff."
2. 20:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wainlode Cliff."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have reverted their third revert. If nothing happens afterwards, there's no reason for further action IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Narrator: There would be, in fact, a reason for further action.. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the premature report, I got wires crossed and forgot 1.1 and 1.2 counted as a single revert. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 07:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I warned this IP editor 3 times to stop vandalizing various articles. He's already been blocked before, so I recommend a longer block. CANthony0125 (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of airlines of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2001:999:481:968:AD00:F3C7:38B:D2C4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 21:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 20:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 20:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC) ""
5. 20:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of airlines of Pakistan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Added additional rv which occurred after the original report was made. Danners430 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• * Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Partial blocked from List of airlines of Pakistan for 24 hours.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Tikitorch2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296456942 by MrOllie (talk) Makes extraordinary scientific claim based on a biased, low quality source to damage reputation of BLP. Fixed with in-text attribution while talk page discussion for better fix in progress"
2. 03:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296455409 by MrOllie (talk) immediately fixed BLP extraordinary, poorly sourced claim with in-text attribution"
3. 03:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296454693 by Bon courage (talk) open to suggestions for better sourcing in the talk page discussion but fixing again poorly sourced extraordinary claim"
4. 02:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296453206 by GeogSage (talk) Onus is on editors reinserting extraordinary claim to provide sources"
5. 02:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296451368 by Bon courage (talk) due to poor sourcing without in-text attribution"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Brownstone Institute Essay */ Reply"

Comments:

Note that this relates to contentious topic COVID-19, which Tikitorch2 is aware of. Talk page consensus is clear on this one, as are the sources. MrOllie (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware this issue is contentious and several months ago I tried to fix it by discussing the science with other editors to show them why the source wasn't very reliable. This time I am trying to focus more on Wikipedia's guidelines.

I fixed the poor WP:BLPSOURCE issue with as minimal an edit as possible--just added in-text attribution and source citations while the talk page discussion continues. I started the talk page discussion to address several wikipedia guideline issues in the first sentence of a paragraph about an essay Martin Kulldorff wrote.

The first sentence describes Martin Kulldorff's essay and segues into a lot of details from a critical response essay by Jonathan Howard. Problems with the first sentence include:

1. Inaccurate summary of the primary source essay

2. Fails to cite the primary source essay (despite it being the topic of the paragraph) and instead uses a summary from the biased secondary source

3. Makes an extraordinary scientific claim that Covid has higher mortality risk to children than influenza without either a scientific citation in in-text attribution. The claim does not seem to be verifiable based on looking at published papers, one of which I added as a citation.

4. Overall lacks balance and appears biased against Kulldorff

There is also an issue with synthesis of data from two different periods of time in the last sentence of the paragraph but that didn't seem justified to remove without getting consensus first. Tikitorch2 (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have one further thing to say in my defense, several of the editors, in particular Bon Courage and Mr. Ollie seem to stonewall all corrections on these topics. Tikitorch2 (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• An indef will likely spare the Project more of this kind of disruption. Bon courage (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE EvergreenFir (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: The Reality War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 124.217.113.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 03:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 03:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 02:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
5. 02:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
6. 02:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
7. 02:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
8. Consecutive edits made from 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC) to 02:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   3. 02:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
9. Consecutive edits made from 01:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC) to 02:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 01:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   3. 01:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   4. 02:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   5. 02:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   6. 02:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   7. 02:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   8. 02:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
10. Consecutive edits made from 01:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC) to 01:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    1. 01:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 01:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Basically the typical multiple revert thing, blatantly violating 3RR. Apparently those actors weren't in that episode, but I didn't look further, I only saw this IP edit warring. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also reported them to WP:AIV. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist: It looks like they are using multiple IP addresses so I also added a 1 month partial block to two IP ranges for the two pages being disrupted. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting User User:Epicion for edit warring on the article Kuberaa.

My constructive and sourced edit was removed by User:Epicion in this revision: 1296458621. The edit summary simply states: "Restored revision 1296458621 by Epicion (talk)", with no valid reason or explanation for reverting my contribution.

I spent around 45 minutes carefully writing and sourcing that edit, and it complied with Wikipedia's guidelines. There was no discussion initiated by the user on the article's talk page or mine. This kind of silent reversion of good-faith contributions without justification is disruptive and discourages editors.

I kindly request administrator review for possible edit warring and disruptive editing.

Thank you.

Farjana837 (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)I am reporting a case of edit warring on the article Kuberaa.[reply]

bollybudget.com, m9.news and Wikipedia:TIMESOFINDIA are not considered as reliable sources. The Economic Times and Live Mint sources are about X reviews, hence unreliable per WP:FRUIT. Epicion (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but I waste 45 mint to writing it Farjana837 (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TOI comes between reliable and unreliable. For box office numbers, though, there may be better sources. Bollybudget is unreliable. I'm not sure about m9.news. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the section which I have removed. Epicion (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. This probably isn't a matter for this page anyway, and I'd encourage everyone to discuss at the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: London Pneumatic Despatch Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&oldid=1296490914

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&oldid=1296511971
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&oldid=1296514432
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&oldid=1296518517
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&oldid=1296519216

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat&oldid=1296519897

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&oldid=1296519198

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat&oldid=1296519897

Comments:
Have tried to resolve on the Talk page, having initiated discussion following two undiscussed reverts. I followed the user's suggested actions, and they also reverted those edits. Mauls (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made no suggestions for you to add that, and your edits were part of the edit warring you undertook as shown below. - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know you have to watch your own edits too? S0 far your reverts on the page are:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=prev&oldid=1296507565
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296516807
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296518244
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296518681
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296518979

You edit warred from the off and I had to ask you to use the talk page. You ignored BRD and WP:STATUS QUO, but kept changing, despite no consensus to do so. Not all your edits were reverted, just a small number which were the subject of the discussion I asked you to start. Why you decided to to ignore STATUSQUO is a mystery to me. Why you then decided to breach WP:CIVIL and throw insults at me is another. - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ignore STATUSQUO - I stopped, discussed, then made edits implementing the alternative you proposed. Which you then also reverted. As for civil, I questioned whether you felt WP:OWN, and you have twice accused me of being 'childish', and twice said my edits were 'ridiculous', so I do think it's a bit rich to accuse me of being uncivil. Mauls (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the thread was still ongoing you edit warred back in stuff I took out in my first challenge to your addition. I did not propose any such additions, so I do not know why you put back in a manual revert something that had already been taken out. As to CIVIL: you accused me of ownership: that's uncivil. Don't expect to throw around unfounded uncivil accusations and expect no pushback from people. I don't presume any ownership on that article (several of your other edits to the page, including adding tags) were untouched and still remain on it. Do you honestly think I would leave them in place if I felt any 'ownership' of the page? I'll remind you what it what it also says on OWN: "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. When you make up such accusations, it is a personal attack. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst we're mentioning uncivil, I also forget to mention your use of "FFS" and "tiresome".

As to why, literally "better dealt with in the text" was what you said in response to why you'd twice reverted the infoboxes. So I added the additional information that the infoboxes had into the text. Mauls (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the specific point on my edits:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=prev&oldid=1296507565

   This was my one initial revert.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296516807
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296518244
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296518681
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296518979

   These four are making the changes - different from the original reverted content - this time those items placed within the text, as you yourself suggested on the talk page in your comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALondon_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=1296517714&oldid=1296517074.

Mauls (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 was your first revert, as you admit

Number 2 contained the some of the same information as was in the first revert (ie. it was a partial manual revert)

Number 3: My bad. That was an error on my part and I've struck it above

Number 4 contained the some of the same information as was in the first and second reverts (ie. it was a partial manual revert)

Number 5 contained the some of the same information as was in the all four of the above edits.

You should have continued the discussion, per WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO. Why you thought that continuing to edit war was a good idea, I have no idea. I'll repeat: I made no suggestion to add pointless details to text, so please don't say I did. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for 3rr breach and incivility. Mauls warned about edit warring and accusations of OWN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I welcome the feedback and will try to learn from it. Mauls (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Newsom v. Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Irruptive Creditor (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 00:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC) to 00:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 00:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "First off, again, the Insurrection Act was not at issue. Second, beyond the fact primary sources should not be used, an amicus brief carries no water and is not a court order. Third, the newly-added news sources still don't exist, and even if they do, are not very reliable as it's clear they're opinion pieces. So much original research and synthesis here."
   2. 00:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Removed improperly added primary reference."
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC) to 19:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 19:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Removed primary source citation, and for User: Cbls1911, that redundant since it is implied by the express statement that the President likely was within statutory authority, as the memorandum wouldn't be within statutory authority if it was issued contrary to the procedures thereunder."
   2. 19:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "External link not appropriate, that’s not a final judgement on the merits, and so is unnecessary to include per the MOS for law articles"
3. 01:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC) "Again, the Insurrection Act was never invoked, that's fake news. Rather that was 10 U.S.C. 12406 as the Presidential Memorandum "Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions" issued on June 7, 2025 clearly states: "I [President Trump] hereby call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel." Mentioning Perpich v. DOD in "See Also" is OR."
4. 01:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC) "Removed fake news. First, 10 U.S.C. 12406 was authority invoked, not the Insurrection Act. Second, there is no “10 U.S.C. § 252” of the Insurrection Act, as that isn’t the Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. 253 is. Finally, title 10 of the United States Code is a positive law title, so 10 U.S.C. 253 is the Insurrection Act and the Insurrection Act is 10 U.S.C. 253, they are synonyms but the same thing."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Remove Reactions section */ Reply"
2. 23:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Remove Reactions section */ Reply"
3. 00:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Remove Reactions section */ Reply"
4. 00:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Remove Reactions section */ Reply"

Comments:

Intervening edits by I and other editors were made between the most recent edits, of which there was only one revert of your edits. Moreover, @Jmik92 and I were not trading barbs. Many of the purported sources you had added (like this one linking to WSJ) do not even exist. It does not exist on the WayBack Machine, it does not exist on Archive.today, or otherwise. I can find no evidence even suggesting that such ever existed at all, quite literally fake news or a hallucinated citation as far as can be seen. In addition, there are also serious problems with original research and synthesis, take this paragraph of yours from one of your edits there for example:

Secondly, the state argues that the order was procedurally defective because the President transmitted it to the adjutant general rather than “through the governor” as § 12406 requires. Finally, California invokes federalism principles: involuntary federalization of a state militia, it says, violates the Tenth Amendment and the anti-commandeering doctrine articulated in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States.

That paragraph cites this, which is an amicus brief submitted by a third-party. It is not part of the court's decision or arguments by the named parties and cannot be attributed as part of the reasoning therein. Then there is this mess:

In addition, the deployment of active-duty Marines as crowd-control forces is alleged to breach the Posse Comitatus Act, with California citing Bissonette v. Haig for the rule that military personnel may not perform "direct" law-enforcement functions.

I have no idea where you got this from, but the case, Bissonette v. Haig, appears nowhere in the corresponding citation for the claim made in that paragraph above. I checked the whole document, it is not even mentioned once (the order even has a handy list of all the precedents being cited and that case is not one of them). This and many other errors, are why your content was removed, it was not an edit war. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Irruptive Creditor — just to clear the air:

• The “missing” Mattis story wasn’t fabricated. Mattis’s open letter was published on 3 June 2020 in *The Atlantic*. During the June 2025 L.A. protests several outlets recycled that 2020 text as though it were new and (mistakenly) credited it to Military.com. When the error was caught the pieces were pulled, so every link to them now 404s. Snopes documents the mix-up: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-la-protests-mattis-statement/.
• Other dead links = paywall/link-rot. The WSJ, NYT, and WaPo items cited in the draft moved behind subscription gateways or were rejiggered in later CMS migrations. That is ordinary link-rot, not source invention.
• Four reverts in 24 h (→ 3RR)

01:26 19 Jun 2025 “Removed fake news …”

01:32 19 Jun 2025 “Again, the Insurrection Act was never invoked …”

19:04 20 Jun 2025 “Removed primary source citation, and for User: Cbls1911 …”

19:09 20 Jun 2025 “External link not appropriate …”

Four reverts inside a single day exceeds the three-revert rule.

• Tone / direct address

* “@Dahawk04, look, **many of your sources** 404-ed, or worse don’t even exist at all …” (20 Jun 2025 18:49 UTC)

* “First off … the newly-added news sources still don’t exist … So much original research and synthesis here.” (21 Jun 2025 00:25 UTC)

Using second-person (“your sources”) and labels like “fake news” shifts discussion from content to contributors, which bumps against WP:CIVIL.

Dahawk04 (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Various edits were made, but there were only two edits which are marked by page logs as reverts, the first was for obvious vandalism involving a fabricated quote, see here. The second is here. As for the edits made on June 19, those were made two days ago and not within a 24 hour time period, let alone 48 hours, see the UTC timestamps and are thus irrelevant anyhow. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]