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:]] reported by [[User:{{subst:Wikieditor969}}]] (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page:  
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1211797731

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&action=history#:~:text=15%3A37%2C%2025%20March%202024
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1219662957
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1220631242
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1222362720

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

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

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

Comments:

• 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) 23:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:BoldGnome reported by User:Daniel Case (Result: Protection)

Page: Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BoldGnome (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:

I am involved in this one, so for once I'm the reporting user because this user is acting way too much like so many other editors reported here and eventually blocked, i.e., evincing a battleground mentality, editing tendentiously and refusing to seriously discuss edits while continuing to revert.

The roots of this go back to January, when the article attracted a lot of views and editing following Gypsy-Rose Blanchard's release from prison. I had done most of the research and writing on the article back in 2017, and as a review of the talk page and archive would show, some people have come by to criticize the way the article was written (when the crime was fresher in everyone's mind and neither defendant had been tried) often in disparaging tones and not really offering specific constructive criticisms when prompted to do so, although I did eventually come to see the points some of them made).

One of them then went by the name Cjhard, and after one such discussion where after expressing some of the same criticism of much of this criticism as rather drive-by in nature, I nevertheless some appreciation for the issues raised and willingness to work with anyone who would constructively address them in rewriting the article intro. Apparently, Cjhard considered this an expression of ownership, and then left the discussion and the page.

The "version reverted to" above is the version of the intro they recently wrote. Unaware that they had changed their username in the interim, I edited it mainly for grammar and MOS issues, explained my edits on the talk page while generally expressing approval of its overall structure (in talk page diff above), only for BG to brusquely revert me as linked above. I reverted again, and in their ensuing revert they directed me to this curt response on the talk page, which as I have noted in my response misinterprets consensus ... also, since when have we ever needed consensus to correct grammar or improve wording as long as it doesn't have any bearing on the facts?

I have since then made only minor edits to the intro addressing some of the purely technical problems with their language, but apparently that's been too much for Cj/BG, who clearly believes that the article intro must be worded THEIR WAY and only their way (See, for instance, the redundant phrasing restored here, the needless repetition of a name restored where a pronoun would do, and similarly here), regardless of whether in the process as much violence is done to the English language as Nicholas Godejohn did to Dee Dee Blanchard.

In perusing BG's talk page, I also found this discussion interesting and relevant to this report. Here, they are asked nicely about having made a revert which also went beyond the scope of the problem addressed and (at least in the other editor's opinion) introduced greater issues in the process. When pressed with specifics about this, they again refused to discuss. Although the other editor was properly blocked for violating ARBECR by initiating the discussion, to me that does not make the issue, and Cj/BG's behavior, any less pertinent here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I warned User:BoldGnome on their talk page that they were risking a block. They have not edited since that time. I would wait a bit and see what they decide. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ed, please note that the first diff provided in this report is not a revert and is a substantive change based on the Talk page discussion (indeed, it's literally the same link as the previous version reverted to). The second diff in this report is the first revert of Daniel Case's substantive edit: [9] which I explained to Daniel Case on the talk page, and advised them to seek consensus for their edits: [10]. Instead, Daniel just reverted the revert: [11], leading to my second revert: [12]. Daniel Case then made a series of smaller, less controversial edits[13] which were accepted except for one specific line of text, which led to the third revert[14].

I'd hope my refusal to facilitate a discussion violating ARBECR wouldn't warrant a response, but it's equally bizarre and telling that Daniel has attempted to use it as evidence that I have a tendency to... edit war?

I'm a little surprised to see this report as I had stepped away from the article and was hoping that talk page consensus would overcome... whatever it is that this is. BoldGnome (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hope is not a plan. No one stepped into the discussion.

You mischaracterize my changes to your intro as "substantive", when most of it streamlined the wording so we don't needlessly repeat ourselves. I explained this on the talk page; you rejected that (as linked above) with scarcely concealed contempt for the very idea of discussion (which as we shall later see is a continuing pattern with this editor).

You conflate "consensus to change the intro" with "consensus for your version exactly as written, complete with typoes, grammatical errors and MOS violations."

Also, please stop misgendering me; I'm pretty clearly a he/him/his. I expect a further apology for that in addition to the one you never made for your remarks on the talk page in January.

I also find your decision to collapse my response, and only my response, to your comment as inexplicably "off-topic" when it was rather on it (as I was telling you how you could get the consensus you claim to be acting on behalf of) to be extremely presumptuous and telling; any other reviewing admin will probably see it the same way. I have never seen an editor do anything like this. We're getting beyond "overzealous good-faith editor" into "problem user" territory. This is not a good-faith move by any means. It comes close IMO to impermissible refactoring; it seems like you don't want people to read what I wrote. Or you have a thin skin.

And the more I look at your history the more I see that this has happened with you before. On your archived talk page, we first see this discussion almost seven years ago, where another poorly explained, overbroad revert led to a brief edit war which finally stopped when Cj/BG explained themselves in detail in a way they seem to have forgotten how to now. The kind of explanation that Cj/BG has, when I made it, dismissively rejected.

In June 2017, Cj/BG, who professes above not to know "whatever this is", nevertheless filed an ANEW report on two other users, which was eventually closed as stale. However, shortly after that report the edit warring that triggered it seems to have led (unnoted at that report) to a block for edit warring.

This was followed by this discussion shortly afterwards, where it seems that two other editors were rubbed raw by similar practices of Cj/BG as in the instant case. That led to the following section and another warning for edit warring, (this is the talk page discussion referred to). I find the two editors there describing behavioral failings similar to what we see here: finding consensus where it does not yet exist, editing to implement that perceived consensus while discussion is ongoing, and a generally condescending tone concealed under superficial politeness.

Later that month another editor requests cj/BG post a more detailed explanation of an NPOV tag they had restored. They responded on neither the article nor their own talk pages, for which the editor who restored the tag called them out.

Later they are cautioned against "throwing around accusations" in an AN/I discussion of a controversial block. Again, seems familiar. The archive ends with Cj/BG demonstrating that they are one of those users who believes they have the unilateral authority to "ban" people from their talk pages.

And at the end of 2017 we saw that someone was so frustrated with Cj/BG they opened an AN/I thread. While it was probably properly closed, I do note that the user in question, despite being overly paranoid, was on target in noting Cj/BG "at times being unnecessarily snarky or condescending".

TL;DR: This behavior is a continuing pattern with this editor, and this should be considered in reviewing this report. Daniel Case (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, please let me know what of the above you consider warrants a response from myself. Also, I had made no edits between Daniel's first warning and his reporting of me here 40 minutes later. What exactly is he trying to do here? BoldGnome (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Also "regardless of whether in the process as much violence is done to the English language as Nicholas Godejohn did to Dee Dee Blanchard" what on Earth??? BoldGnome (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Result: Page fully protected for one week. Going to ANI remains an option if there are any long-term issues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fine. I will, of course, refrain from editing it during that time. @BoldGnome:, with all that said above, I still look forward to and invite a discussion of our differences on the talk page. I have already explained my reasons, so it's your move. As linked above you have done this in the past. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Drop the stick, Daniel. BoldGnome (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

User:The Kazanchis reported by User:GSS (Result: Declined; GSS warned)

Page: Draft:David Merriman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "The Kazanchis moved page Draft:David Merriman to David Merriman"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC) "General note: Disclosure requirements for paid editing under the Wikimedia Terms of Use."
2. 08:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is definitely an undisclosed paid editor who is desperate to get their work restored. I asked them multiple times not to move the drafts to the main namespace and to submit them for review, but all requests were ignored. They denied any conflict of interest but failed to answer my questions about the images. On top of that, there is a very strong case of proxy/meatpuppetry. I have already filed the case and am waiting for an admin to look at it. The SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Kazanchis. GSS ^💬 09:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who is reading this, I have declared multiple times that I do not have any COI with my contributions. But, I am not understanding why the user GSS keeps saying I am paid for my edits. He has no single evidence for doing so and I believe it is him who is violating the Wikipedia terms. If GSS has evidence than belief show it and then I will get blocked. But, his false claim hits nerve. Rather, I feel like, because he do it, he thinks any other editor also do it. The Kazanchis (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You still haven't provided an explanation on how on earth you managed to find File:Panduka Mahendra Jayasekera.jpg and File:Panduka Mahendra Jayasekera.jpg on Flickr just after they were uploaded by "Chinthaka DG," and then surprisingly user Chinthaka1701 was registered the same day Mahendra Jayasekera was created by you. I asked you the same question on your talk page, and you completely ignored it. GSS ^💬 09:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Declined. GSS, you should not be move-warring over whether the article should be in draft space or article space. See WP:DONTDRAFTIFY. This is a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23:, I respect your observation and decision to warn me. However, please note that the articles were draftified per WP:DRAFTREASON #1, and WP:DRAFTOBJECT states that editors with a conflict of interest have no right to object to draftification. This is a clear-cut case of undisclosed paid editing, and I am not the only one who believes that. Thank you. GSS ^💬 13:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Aileen Friesen reported by User:Rahio1234 (Result: Indefinitely blocked; Rahio1234 warned)

Page: History of the chair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Aileen Friesen (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:

Violation of WP:3RR Rahio1234 13:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Aileen Friesen as a sock, for edit-warring, and for personal attacks against Rahio1234. Rahio1234, you reverted eight times. The only reason I'm warning you instead of blocking you is because of the history of that page and the addition of that particular material repeatedly to the article; in other words, there's an argument that the addition of the material is vandalism and therefore exempt under WP:3RRNO, even though, in my view, it is not vandalism. Regardless, your method of dealing with it is poor. Finally, when you file a report on this page, you must do so properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

User:2405:3800:84B:1E32:91A6:951B:7279:2F04 reported by User:Robertsky (Result: /64 blocked for a week)

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

User being reported: 2405:3800:84B:1E32:91A6:951B:7279:2F04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Peranakan Chinese"
2. 08:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "This page tells about all types of Peranakan not only Chinese Peranakan"
3. 03:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Peranakan Chinese"
4. 10:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) "This page discusses the type of Peranakan ethnicity, not only the Chinese Peranakan, after this I will be more extensive up to Indonesian Peranakan and Borneo Peranakan."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Peranakans."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clear CIR/IDNHT. May be block evasion too as this is related to Peranakan Chinese, which the article was moved to after a now blocked editor insisted on a poor attempt at working on the article. There should be a base article/set index for the Peranakan title, however as Rosguill pointed out at Special:Permalink/1224297316, the version this IP editor is putting in is sub par. – robertsky (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Do note that I also have a standing request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Peranakans to protect the page. Being involved, I am not exercising my admin tools on this. – robertsky (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week 2405:3800:84B:1E32:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

User:PicturePerfect666 reported by User:ImStevan (Result: Both in breach of 1RR, reporter pageblocked for 48 hours, PicturePerfect666 blocked for 1RR and personal attacks)

Page: Eurovision Song Contest 2024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: PicturePerfect666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
2. 18:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
3. 14:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Other relevant diffs:

1. 03:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC) – removal of content
2. Edit warring on the talk page:

• 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• 18:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• 19:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Removal_of_content
2. Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Intro_paragraph_of_incidents
3. Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Complaints_regarding_a_specific_user

Comments: The user is constantly pushing their POV on the article, citing POV breaches. Despite multiple discussions being led on the talk page, user claims that consensus has been achieved, whilst insulting users that oppose their POV, and engaging in WP:BLUDGEON, as you can see on the talk page of the article in question. The user was already warned by two admins of making comments in bad faith — IмSтevan ^talk 19:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a bad faith report by a user engaged in highly personal comments and POV pushing on a contentious article. They do not come here with clean hands and boomerang applies to this user as they are not behaving in a way to further the goals of Wikipedia and are behaving disruptive and this report is yet another disruptive action by them.

The person making the report has engaged antagonistically for a prolonged period and has made personal attacks on users have ‘an agenda’ or similar. The moved where I placed comments on a talk because they wanted it in another place which is the height of being disruptive and acting in bad faith for no reason other that to cause annoyance. Additionally a whole section on a talk page dedicated to attacking a user who they disagree with should not be on a talk page of an article but on a user talk page which is where discussion was moved to but the reporting user insisted on keeping the inappropriate discussion on the article talk page. A third party has subsequently closed and collapsed the inappropriate section.

The person reporting is in clear violation of rules on bold, revert, discuss. They have run in bad faith to a notice board, after engaging in disruptive editing in violation of BRD even after it being expressly made known to them. They are not doing this report in good faith.

Additionally only a technical point three reverts does not violate the three revert rule.

Personally I’d like to take the person making the report out to the woodshed for their behaviour. I though know that on a topic such as this where the user is heated and has strong opinions, it’s not a good use of a tones time. The person making the report needs speaking to, to ensure they engage constructively and not antagonistically Wikipedia as they are doing on such a disruptive way.

In short the reporting user is not behaving to the standards expected of someone in good faith and collaboratively, the ignore Wikipedia Policies and guidelines and make bad faith disruptive action such as this report. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

When everybody is telling you that you're wrong, including staff, perhaps trying to shift the blame is not the move — IмSтevan ^talk 20:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You're both edit-warring, and PP666 is making personal attacks. Who is this "staff" of which you speak? And a reminder to you both - there are significant restrictions on edits concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which you both appear to have breached. Acroterion (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Can you please add the appropriate warnings templates to the page as I feel like me doing so would be inappropriate. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

More evidence of bad faith from the reporter, also ‘staff’ talk about a fawn to authority. Additionally broad brush sweeping rubbish such as ‘When everybody is telling you that you're wrong’ is tosh. Nothing of the sort occurred. Inappropriate personalised sections and alike are not the checkmate or gotcha you think they are. Finally, ‘shift the blame’ this is not a one way street. You must be aware of WP:Boomerang, bring the reporter gives you no immunity for your behaviour which has been petty, vindictive, assuming bad faith, targeted, personalised, and against the numerous civility and editing practices. You have some of the least clean hands of any person making a report I’ve encountered. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

They're already there, and you're about to be blocked for violating 1RR and for the personal attacks above. Acroterion (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours ImStevan is pageblocked for 48 hours for breach of 1RR, PicturePerfect666 is siteblocked for 48 hours for breach of 1RR and personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

References

User:FeldmarschallGneisenau reported by User:WordSilent (Result: )

Page: Donald Tusk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16] (11:40, 16 May 2024)
2. [17] [18] [19] (16:04, 16 May 2024‎ - 16:05, 16 May 2024‎)
3. [20] (00:46, 17 May 2024‎)
4. [21] (18:14, 18 May 2024‎)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (none, it has been discussed on the article's talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [23]

Comments:

There was a content dispute between me and the user as whether the Donald Tusk article should include pronunciation guide (see the article's talk page). As our discussion came to the stalemate, a WP:3O was requested to help settle down the content dispute. When the third opinion turned out to be unfavorable for the user, they continued to delete the pronunciation guide from the article.

They justify their reverts in a seemingly WP:OWN way as I have a feeling that because of you now the article looks bad and Right now the article is simply not what a proper, normal world leader's article should ever look like, in my opinion. The user appears to have no desire to solve the dispute constructively, but rather keep on pushing their changes so the article is formatted the way they like.

As far as I'm aware, it's not the first time the user has engaged in a dispute like this. Their similar disputes include those at Czech Republic (talk, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), Lex Fridman (AN thread, user talk 1, user talk 2, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4), and a previous one at Donald Tusk (AN thread, talk, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3).

There is also an investigation open about whether the user is someone else's sock account. WordSilent (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Jihanysta reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Ibn Battuta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC) "The previous edit do not clearly indicate his birthplace in the context of modern-day countries, which is "Tangier, Morocco.""
2. 00:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC) "The previous edit do not clearly indicate his birthplace in the context of modern-day countries, which is "Tangier, Morocco.""
3. 00:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1224534989 by M.Bitton (talk)"
4. 23:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1224488212 by Skitash (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ibn Battuta."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) "/* May 2024 */ Reply"
2. 00:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC) "/* May 2024 */ Reply"
3. 01:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC) "/* May 2024 */"
4. 01:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC) "/* May 2024 */ Reply"

Comments:

After making an edit with an IP (see 41.251.151.198) that was reverted, they created an account to force their edit through an edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Gajlsi reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: )

Page: Great Famine (Ireland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gajlsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff
2. Diff
3. Diff

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: Diff

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

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

Comments:

Please note that there is a one-revert rule restriction applied to the page. Besides the warning that is linked above, the user should have known about it, considering that there is also an editnotice visible to anyone who has tried to edit the page. Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

User:2A01:CB14:11E1:400:E942:5C64:90DC:CF65 reported by User:NoWikiNoLife (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Basketball at the 2024 Summer Olympics Men's 3x3 qualification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Basketball at the 2024 Summer Olympics Women's 3x3 qualification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A01:CB14:11E1:400:E942:5C64:90DC:CF65 (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 / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
This non-login user keeps reverting the bracket (at the very bottom of the page), even though I have asked him not to. Can someone please do something about this user? Thanks.

• 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) 20:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly why Wikipedia is the way it is. Just like all other systems that slowly get destroyed by its own overbearing administration. Everything has to be done in a uniform way and following exact steps. Some things in life should be simple. I already used the template and provided the most important into. I have no idea what these 'Diffs' are and I don't care to learn. If I did, I would, and would then apply to be an admin myself. Admins are supposed to be helpful and work as mediators between common users and professionals. But in Wikipedia admins are often keyboard warriors who need 'great admiration' and want to be 'respected' just because they are Wikipedia admins. I don't care much for that. I reported a non-login user with a three-day history who is clearly vandalizing a page because they don't understand how brackets in sports works. If you can deal with them - great. And if you refuse to deal with the issue because I clicked on the wrong button in the process, then so be it. Maybe one day, upon reflection, you will realize how very ridiculous all of that is. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)