Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:52, 11 July 2023

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

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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.

User:Carter00000 reported by User:GWA88 (Result: Both blocked 2 weeks from editing the Portal namespace)

Page: Portal:Current events/2023 July 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Portal:Current events/2023 June 26 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carter00000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Carter00000 has been edit warring multiple times with multiple editors on the current events portal in recent times. Most notably on June 26 but again on July 5. He keeps citing WP:ONUS and then using that to remove whatever he wants without regard for others opinions, and ignores WP:PRESERVE. I've been editing the portal now for nine years and he's one of the most prolific edit warring editors I've encountered. I know he's edit war'd with other users as well such as User:IJBall. It's really just a pattern of behaviour which is tantamount to my way or the highway on the current events portal. Even after a discussion was started on the talk page that clearly established consensus he continued reverting it citing WP:ONUS again, making the discussion he started pointless. I don't see him changing this behaviour so I would recommend a block on the current events portal. GWA88 (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also note that Carter00000 appears to have been involved in historical edit war disputes such as here in June 2022 as well as accusations of harassment from another user who has edited the portal in December 2022. GWA88 (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

On the June 2022 diff, I note that I did edit war, but did not exceed 3RR. That being said, edit warring does not require a user to exceed 3RR. I only started editing WP substantively in June 2022 and this was the first time I had a content dispute with other editors. While my conduct was admittedly not up to standard, I think it being my first time, is understandable to an extent.

On the December 2022 diff, I'd note that the allegations evidently unwarranted, given that the user withdrew the allegations just fifteen days later. I would like to express my concern that you presented this as evidence against me. As a long-term contributor to Portal:Current events, you are well aware that this user has disputed the portal over a long period, and my efforts to stop that disruption. You yourself have presented evidence at a ANI filing previously on this user, started by myself.

As a regular contributor to the portal, you are one of those who understands this issue the most, and has benefitted the most from the reduction of disruption from the user. For you to now come here and present these efforts as misconduct on my part is intentionally misleading and could be considered to be casting aspersions.

In closing, I note that the links which you have presented seem to link directly to the editing function, I'm not sure how you managed to do that. After nine years on WP, linking properly should not be a issue for you. Carter00000 (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, please stop templating the regulars. Secondly, it's not battleground behaviour, I'm trying to establish a pattern of behaviour here, and yes that means looking through your past disputes. I'm sure you do make a lot of good faith edits but recently I haven't seen that. In nine years of editing the portal, I've had content disputes for sure but I've never been warned for edit warring until you left me a warning, which I didn't even break the 3RR. Finally, I did accidentally link to the editing function as you pointed out, I was rushing the edit as I had to go out and do something. I apologize. Mistakes happen. GWA88 (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:DTTR is a essay, which is not WP:PAG. I also don't agree with the sprit which you have quoted this guideline. I have every right to warn you, and this right is not diminished simply because you have been on WP longer then me.

On "I'm sure you do make a lot of good faith edits but recently I haven't seen that" you seem to accusing me of making bad faith edits. Please note that making allegations of bad faith edits on WP is a serious action which requires evidence, otherwise it is simply casting aspersions. Carter00000 (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I admit that my conduct on June 26 was unacceptable. I went past 3RR, and could have rightly been blocked. However, I did stop edit warring and apologized to those I edit warred with. As a sign of good faith, I added a section to the material to increase its notability , my original removal being based on concerns on whether the entry met the notability standard for inclusion.

I would like to note that I started the discussion for that entry , and attempted to discuss the notability of the material, based on the information presented in the sources . While I was overruled 3-1, I note it was not a consensus.

Consensus is not a vote. Consensus is formed after through discussion of the content and based on the strength of the arguments. This did not happen here, as none of the participants actually engaged in the discussion, but simply forced the matter through, refusing to discuss the matter further . It was frustration at this which led me to revert beyond 3RR. Carter00000 (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"This did not happen here, as none of the participants actually eneged in the discussion, but simply forced the matter through, refusing to discuss the matter further.". Well, that just absolutely didn't happen. I argued for its inclusion based on its international coverage and the context of the story within the wider Ukrainian counteroffensive happening at the time. As did, @IJBall while @The Kip noted that previous captures of villages/towns have been included before. How is that "forcing the matter through"? We made our arguments and you just rejected them because you assume your opinion is the right one. And while you did apologize on this occasion, you have continued edit warring and continuing the same behaviour on the portal. GWA88 (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I think any reasonable person would agree that making a single round of replies to a person's initial opening argument, then moving straight to restoring the entry, without even waiting for a reply, would not be considered to be a discussion. Carter00000 (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. it is a discussion. It's also ironic when you say you were frustrated at the content being restored without discussing the matter further because you do exactly the same thing when you revert content. You just revert then say "see talk page" in the edit summary ect.. GWA88 (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because WP:ONUS states that it is your responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion. The fact that I have to start the talk page discussion and direct you to it, is already contrary to policy. It should have been you who started the talk page discussion, being the one who first added the entry. Carter00000 (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous. So you have to start a discussion on the talk page for everything you post on the current events portal? You were the only one with an issue with those highlighted stories. Anyway, I have made my argument. You have been edit warring, awkward and disruptive on multiple occasions on the current events portal. I will now leave this matter to the administrators. GWA88 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not make straw-man arguments. I've only said that you should be the one to open the discussion if you additions are opposed. I have not said that you need to start a discussion for everything you post. Carter00000 (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I stand by my application of WP:ONUS. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This basic policy is something that GWA88 does not seem to understand, despite his tenure editing for nine years. In fact, GWA88 has at times asserted , , , that it is consensus for removal of information which is needed, which is simply not WP:PAG.

I note that I've also had to explain to GWA88 what WP:NOCONSENSUS is today , another basic concept, his interpretation being incorrect. Previously, I also explained WP:PRESERVE , noting that while some issues can be fixed, a lack of notability of an entry is a violation of core WP policies, and cannot simply be fixed, per WP:CANTFIX. Notability is again a core concept, a concept which GWA88 does not seem to fully understand.

GWA88 frequently reverts those who remove his additions to the portal , without starting a discussion. This is edit warring. Each time I've had a content disagreement with GWA88, I have had to be one to start the discussion on the talk page , , . In this discussion, I made an effort to compromise . It is GWA88's behavior, who constantly reverts other editors with no effort to start a talk page discussion, despite WP:ONUS, which is tantamount to my way or the highway.

Taking into account the WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:IDHT issues illustrated above, I feel that it is GWA88 who may benefit from a block. Carter00000 (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course I don't treat Misplaced Pages like a battleground. On the contrary, I'll admit when I'm wrong. For example, on Portal:Current events/2023 April 19 I got it wrong and admitted it here as soon as the story was corrected. Nice try at deflecting away from your own bad behaviour on the current events portal though. GWA88 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the diff you have presented, it seems there is no difference to those cases I have presented previously.

You posted an entry, and was reverted by a second editor. You immediately reverted that revert without starting a discussion, as is your responsibility per WP:ONUS. Like each of cases I have presented, the reverting user had to come to you and start the discussion, when it should have been the other way round.

I also find this line "Nice try at deflecting away from your own bad behaviour on the current events portal though" to be quite interesting. I think it is you who is now trying to deflect attention from your own behavior, going through my talk page and looking for anything that will stick, including non-edit war related allegations like "harassment" , especially when you know it's not true. I note these actions also constitute WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Carter00000 (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I also note that this part of what GWA88 has written "I've been editing the portal now for nine years and he's one of the most prolific edit warring editors I've encountered. I know he's edit war'd with other users as well such as User:IJBall" seems to be casting WP:ASPERSIONS. No evidence or diffs have been provided for his statements. I further note that I have not previously edit warred with IJball, having only encountered the editor briefly on this Portal and one other page. Carter00000 (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I've self-reverted and re-added the entry which was the focus of the content dispute for July 5, given the through and convincing rationale put forward by a third editor. Carter00000 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I would support, at the very last, a partial block from portal-related pages, per GWA88, and, if necessary, a sitewide block. I only encountered this user the other day when they were, for lack of a better word, harassing IJBall with warnings and violating WP:DTTR and then violated DTTR again and templated me with a bogus final warning—yeah, straight to a final warning. I also find it hypocritical to report IJBall or any user for alleged edit warring, which I didn't see anything that technically violated either 3RR or EW, when from what I've seen and what GWA88 has said above, this user has a history of edit warring, so dragging another user to ANEW over some supposed technical violation seems to me like it was just done out of spite. People who have an active history of edit warring shouldn't be reporting others for allegedly doing the same thing. I know there's no actual guideline or policy against it, I just don't think it's a good idea. Amaury • 17:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

As I've mentioned in my reply to GWA88 above, WP:DTTR is a essay, which is not WP:PAG. Similarly, I don't agree with the sprit which you have quoted this guideline. I have every right to warn any user which I deem fit, and this right is not diminished simply because a user has been on WP longer then me.

Referring to the diff you have presented, let's look at the facts. I posted a message on IJball's talk page warning against making personal attacks, which is clearly not harassment, but a legitimate warning made in good faith. You reverted this message twice , , falsely claiming the message was illegitimate. I note that you also quoted WP:DTTR, when I didn't actually use a template. Given that I'd reverted you twice and warned you in the edit summaries, I posted a warning to your page. I further note that IJball has now been blocked, in part due to the personal attacks which I warned him for.

I want to reiterate that difference in tenure does not prevent me from warning or talking to another editor. I found you reverts to be a clear disruption of conflict resolution process, hence my warning. Given your extensive block log, I would say this attitude of simply blocking a less senior users attempts at conflict resolution to be potentially be grounds for further blocking.

I further note that you've accused me of having "a history of edit warring" and "dragging another user to ANEW over some supposed technical violation seems to me like it was just done out of spite. Both of these accusations are simply casting aspersions. Additionally, saying "I also find it hypocritical to report IJBall or any user for alleged edit warring, which I didn't see anything that technically violated either 3RR or EW" seems to be WP:IDHT, when the user has actually been blocked for the violation. Carter00000 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I note that GWA88 has again reverted an removal of an entry he has made, without any attempts at starting a discussion per WP:ONUS, despite the discussions over the past few days. Carter00000 (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

First, it doesn't matter whether a page is an essay or not. It doesn't give you the right to go around slapping warnings on people's talk pages just because you don't agree with them. Some things are also just common sense, whether here on Misplaced Pages or outside in the world. We don't need everything written out to the nth degree, as per WP:CREEP. And even without DTTR, your warnings were completely inappropriate. But let's put DTTR aside for a moment. Let's say your warnings were appropriate, which they weren't. You don't escalate straight to a level 4 warning; instead, you should have started out with a general note. Second, I personally don't think the block was warranted to begin with, nor do I agree with the rationale given for the block, especially considering he wasn't given the chance to respond to the ANEW report, but IJBall was not blocked for personal attacks. Factually speaking, according to the block log, he was blocked for edit warring and incivility in edit summaries, and it should be noted that incivility and personal attacks are not the same thing. He was also blocked for 31 hours. IJBall is the one who requested an indefinite block. Third, my block log here is irrelevant. Like GWA88, I have made my own mistakes and was even blocked indefinitely at one point, but I don't have an active history or pattern of it. You, on the other hand, appear to. Amaury • 18:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I find it interesting Carter00000 accuses me of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior because I brought up his previous disputes (as to establish a pattern of behaviour) but he has no issue with bringing up your block log to discredit you, and most of those blocks were over a decade ago. GWA88 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Come on. I included my rationale for its inclusion in the edit summary, as you can see . That's always been standard procedure on the Current Events portal. GWA88 (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems that anyone they disagree with gets accused of casting aspersions or personal attacks. In other words, they have no issue accusing other users of things, but if someone else says something about them that can be taken negatively, such as them edit warring, they accuse those people of making personal attacks or casting aspersions. Amaury • 20:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I should note that the reported party here has gone to the talk pages of users Beeblebrox and NinjaRobotPirate in an attempt to have some sort of action taken against me. That, in my opinion, seems to be some type of WP:CANVASSING, especially considering I never violated anything. Amaury • 19:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've watched this for long enough. The usual resolution would have been marking this report as stale and pointing to WP:ANI in case there are long-term behavioral issues to be discussed. This noticeboard is "for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule" and it would have been easy to archive this without action. Both Carter00000's and GWA88's demonstrated unwillingness or inability to disengage from the conflict seem to require a closure that goes further than just warning both, though: Words failed above already.

Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing pages in the Portal namespace.

I strongly encourage Carter00000 and GWA88 to self-impose the following restriction: If something you add is reverted, seek a consensus and try to convince others to re-add it for you through pure discussion, not a single revert. And if something you revert is re-added, try to convince others to re-remove it by starting a discussion on the talk page yourself. If a legitimate report about edit warring in the Portal namespace reoccurs in the near future, the next administrative step won't be limited to two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

User:IndyCar1020 reported by User:Wretchskull (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Ada Lovelace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: IndyCar1020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC) "Amazing speed at which you read the sources I've posted, I'll assume this is in "good faith" and not that you're just blindly following your own political beliefs."
2. 10:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC) "Please stop removing three sources which explain what the latest research is, also please stop edit warring."
3. 09:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC) "Read the sources and weep guys, then, call upon the Ministry of Truth to RECTIFY this so you'll feel better. Go ahead and ban me. Someone has to stand up to this insanity."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Not the first programmer */ Reply"

Comments:

Plus and Wretchskull (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

User:FCPedit reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Page protected)

Page: O Clássico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FCPedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

After apparently removing information from the article on different days and with different IP addresses, the editor created an account with a name based on my name account and continued edit warring after I mentioned their edit warring with different IPs. Also, please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Atimaccax. SLBedit (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Page protected for one week. Aoidh (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Shiblu47 reported by User:GraziePrego (Result: )

Page: Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Shiblu47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Salahuddin_Quader_Chowdhury&oldid=1162515179

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Salahuddin_Quader_Chowdhury&oldid=1164635446
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Salahuddin_Quader_Chowdhury&oldid=1164635561
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Salahuddin_Quader_Chowdhury&oldid=1164635916
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Salahuddin_Quader_Chowdhury&oldid=1164670761
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Salahuddin_Quader_Chowdhury&oldid=1164672534
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Salahuddin_Quader_Chowdhury&oldid=1164676876
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Salahuddin_Quader_Chowdhury&oldid=1164685191
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Salahuddin_Quader_Chowdhury&oldid=1164693922

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Shiblu47&oldid=1164715189

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The discussion has been had on the user's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Shiblu47

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Shiblu47&oldid=1164760374 Comments:

This user is constantly attempting to change the name of Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury across its wikipedia page, and add unsourced information. They refuse to listen to anyone trying to stop them on their talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Shiblu47. GraziePrego (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Oksimormon reported by User:Respublik (Result: )

Page: 2023–24 EuroCup Basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oksimormon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:04, June 30, 2023 "You didn't do math in primary school, so you need some source?? Source clearly says what represents "minimum point ranking" which is not something new (i don't remember you editing basketball articles in previous years, so looks like that you ARE NEW and you don't have a clue). .I"
2. 14:59, July 1, 2023
3. 02:45, July 2, 2023
4. 13:24, July 2, 2023
5. 17:43, July 10, 2023 "Sorry to disappoint you "respublik", but no.... Your link doesn't prove anything. And i will write once again and for the last time: you don't need source for calculating points, everyone can check and calculate, but you cannot?? And i will never stop to revert your deletings, not because you're not right, its because you're jerk and obviously a lunatic... .!"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 03:51, July 2, 2023

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

Comments:

Additionally tried , acknowledged only through . Respublik (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Jazz0005 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

User being reported: Jazz0005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1164750180 by LilianaUwU (talk) Please do not have an edit war"
2. 21:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1164746395 by Yoshi24517 (talk) It's not a conspiracy theory itself its a news website, and for it to be called a "Fake News Website" they would have to deliberately publish news they know is fake, which isn't the case since TruNews isn't deliberately making fake news, although what they do have may be considered fake news"
3. 19:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1164734826 by Yoshi24517 (talk) No specific reason for removal."
4. 19:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1164675356 by Adakiko (talk) Content supported by reliable sources. Don't wp:edit war. Discuss on talk:TruNews and get wp:consensus before removal."
5. 05:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a few lines, It's not a conspiracy theory itself its a news website, and for it to be called a "Fake News Website" they would have to deliberately publish news they know is fake, which isn't the case since TruNews isn't deliberately making fake news, although what they do have may be considered fake news."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on TruNews."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Obviously a single-purpose account attempting to whitewash the article in question in this report. Multiple reliable sources seem to indeed call TruNews a fake news website, but it seems like Jazz0005 doesn't want to understand that. LilianaUwU 03:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I want to point out the irony of their edit summary being "please do not have an edit war"... on their fourth revert. LilianaUwU 05:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources show that it's a news website, what sources say that "They are intentionally posting fake news and TruNews is 100% sure that all they post is fake". TruNews doesn't believe their news is fake, for it to be a fake news website they have to post news that is deliberately fake. The most reliable source is their website itself "https://www.trunews.com/", they don't present themselves as a hoax website in any way other than what other sources are saying. Jazz0005 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Most hoax websites don't admit to being hoax websites. And no, they aren't an independent reliable source for themselves. Regardless, you cannot edit war. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have sources that claim Trunews is a legitimate news website, you should offer them, not edit war. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Nachofanfan reported by User:Technopat (Result: )

Page: Las Meninas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC) "/* External links */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC) to 10:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
   1. 10:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC) "/* External links */"
   2. 10:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC) "/* External links */"
3. 10:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC) "/* External links */"
4. 09:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC) "/* External links */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit summaries requested user to discuss on talk page, Technopat (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:282C:EC00:45B:1BB8:7C65:9A34 reported by User:Linkin Prankster (Result: )

Page: List of programs broadcast by The CW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:4040:282C:EC00:45B:1BB8:7C65:9A34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: , , , ,

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
The IP user is back to adding his edits without bothering to start a discussion. They've been making such disruptive edits without consensus at multiple. Each time they're reverted by any user they just put their edit back. I've been unable to keep track of all of their edits since they just keep restoring them on multiple pages.

The past two times I complained and their IP range was blocked , they didn't try to discuss after the block expired. The IP is dynamic so trying to talk to them on the IP seems useless, regardless I've sent a warning on one of their IP talk pages and have recently opened a discussion at one of the articles .

I've posted a talk message to seek consensus for their edits on their talk page just today too a few minutes after they restored their edits. . But I doubt they'll be responding to messages or stop after short blocks, please at least consider placing a 6 months block on their anon editing so they're forced to discuss. Linkin Prankster (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring