Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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.

Click here to create a new report

User:UtherSRG reported by User:TakuyaMurata (Result: Page protected)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Off topic

I don't like to use this card but: I have a Ph.D. in math so maybe just maybe I know some math and probably know what I am doing (i.e., what assertions are nontrivial and what are not). If I am known for writing low-quality articles, maybe just maybe some other math editors took some steps to prevent me from editing math articles. I don't think it's so unreasonable to ask to leave math editors alone when they are not known for causing vandalisms or some other negative contributions (I am not infallible but the positive should far outweight the negative, I want to think). -- Taku (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC) Your knowledge is not important. What's important is what's valuable to the readers of this general encyclopedia. In fact, your PhD hampers your ability to assess what a general reader needs. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC) You missed my point: it does require some technical backgroud to tell which assertion is trivial or not (e.g., if something is routine and thus does not require a citation). Thus, if someone without a proper background tries to edit a technical article, their contribution can be misguided or detrimental as unfortunetely your contributions are (I don't doubt your good intention but compitence is needed especially in technical articles.) It is not unreasonable to let editors with good track records to take care of articles instead of novices such as yourself (in the case of math articles). Taku (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Alphamale03 reported by User:Magic Fizz (Result: Page protected)

Page: Punjabi Hindus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Alphamale03 (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 18:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC) to 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 18:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295721617 by Ekdalian (talk)"
   2. 18:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295766357 by Alphamale03 (talk)"
   3. 19:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295767167 by Alphamale03 (talk) I agree that Punjabis are having much bigger shares. The whole GT road belt and district like Yamunanagar, Panchkula, Hisar, Sirsa etc are having children taking second language as punjabi always in schools too. We should not confuse folks with ethnicity vs caste."
   4. 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295719770 by Indieraw (talk) I agree that Punjabis are having much bigger shares. The whole GT road belt and district like Yamunanagar, Panchkula, Hisar, Sirsa etc are having children taking second language as punjabi always in schools too. We should not confuse folks with ethnicity vs caste."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Punjabi Hindus."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Are we sure that's a violation of 3RR? It appears two of them were Alphamale reverting himself? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

MilesVorkosigan, not all edit warring consists of four edits within 24 hours, and not all page protections are purely in response to a specific edit war. In this case here, I protected the page and the need for any other action just vanished. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Whattfirrad reported by User:Magic Fizz (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Dio Brando (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */Dio's hair is long"
2. 02:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */Nah Dio's hair is long. Go learn the difference between long hair and short hair."
3. 01:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */ you don't know the difference between normal Dio's long hair and high Dio's short hair?? did you watch jojo? It's totally different haircuts. Dio's hair was always long. different than high Dio's short hair . Many jojo accounts and even jojo wiki confirmed araki meant high Dio's short haircut. https://jojowiki.com/Dio_Brando araki was talking about high Dio. Why don't you accept the fact Dio's hair is long???? You didn't even jojo ??"
4. 23:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */ In jojo wiki they confirmed araki meant high Dio https://jojowiki.com/Dio_Brando

Also other accounts on Twitter confirmed araki meant high Dio.

Dio's hair is long. What is too hard to understand? High dio has a short haircut. Looks nothing like regular Dio's long hair. Go talk to jojowiki if you don't understand"

1. 21:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */Dio's hair is long. Not short and araki was talking about high Dio's form not regular Dio. Source In jojo wiki they confirmed araki meant high Dio https://jojowiki.com/Dio_Brando"
2. 08:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */Araki was talking about high DIO's haircut form after sucking Joseph blood. Not Dio."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dio Brando."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Italopiombino reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: 1 week partial block)

Page: Hasan Agha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Italopiombino (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 15:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC) to 16:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 15:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC) "Édouard Cat's Mission bibliographique en Espagne: rapport à Monsieur le ministre de l'Instruction publique is indeed meets all the criteria of a valid secondary source."
   2. 16:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC) "Édouard Cat's Mission bibliographique en Espagne: rapport à Monsieur le ministre de l'Instruction publique indeed meets all the criteria of a valid secondary source"
2. 08:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC) "I have answered all of M.Bitton's perplexities thoroughly, who's demonstrated not to have read my source before hastily deleting what I wrote. The fact that account is closer to the events narrated in it can only be an argument to its reliability, not to its lack thereof."
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC) to 20:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 19:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "That's exactly what the source says, see page 81."
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC) to 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "You were wrong to hastily delete what I wrote: the book which cites the manuscript is from the 19th century, but the manuscript containing the account of Hasan Agha's kidnapping, that is, manuscript V 248, which is cited by said source, is from the 16th century, as clearly explained in page 81 of Édouard Cat's book. It is said that the documents contained in the manuscript were collected by Juan Paez de Castro, who worked for Philip II of Spain during the 16th century, not the 19th, of course."
   2. 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 17:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC) to 17:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 17:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hasan Agha."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ new section"

Comments:

Being adamant that old primary sources are more reliable than modern secondary scholarly ones is not an excuse for the battleground attitude and the edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

"Édouard Cat's Mission bibliographique en Espagne: rapport à Monsieur le ministre de l'Instruction publique , the source I cited, can in no way be considered a primary source. The text reported from the manuscript cannot be considered a primary source either, since it's not a firsthand account written by Hasan Agha, nor by Alcayde Ali, and it's not even a report directly written by someone who spoke to them, since it's not written by Nicola Iba the Sardinian, the priest who dealth with Alcayde, but by Juan Perez or Paez De Castro, who never spoke with the renegades, but wrote an account of Alcayde Ali's and Hasan Agha's life, after receiving information, possibly from Nicola Iba or another ambassador. The account itself having been written many decades after their kidnapping.

So your criticism is again not valid, neither "Édouard Cat's work describing and reporting the content of the manuscript, nor the text pertaining to Hasan's life contained in said manuscript, can be classified as a primary source.

In addition to that, the scholarly source you cited, are in no way contradictory to the more detailed scholarly secondary source I cited. Italopiombino (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Even assuming for the sake of the argument that the manuscript itself could considered a primary source - which is debatable because it deals with events removed by several decades from its composition, and not witnessed directly, nor was it written by someone who spoke with a witness - the source I actually cited is Édouard Cat's work, not the manuscript itself. The manuscript is in turn cited in Édouard Cat's report, see the definition given in the Wikipedia page about primary sources:

"Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources."

Therefore, if I had only cited the content of the manuscript, after having consulted it myself, without citing Édouard Cat's work, then, arguably, the source I cited could be considered primary, but since I cited Édouard Cat's publication, and not the manuscript directly, the source I cited is in fact secondary, not primary, and therefore a secondary source according to Wikipedia's standards.

Édouard Cat gave a summary and a brief comment upont the dating and authorship of the text in page 81, making his work, the one I actually cited in the footnote, a secondary, not primary source. I did mention the manuscript, for the sake of accuracy, but not as the source cited directly in the footnote.

Aside from that, the idea that a secondary source is necessarily better than a primary one is not held by Wikipedia, the page "Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources" states:

<<Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary".>>

<<"Primary" does not mean "bad">>

<<"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.>>

Let's now go back to M.Bitton's first criticism, since he only came up with the secondary vs primary sources argument after having been proven wrong, without acknowledging his first make: his cricism was about the dating of the source I cited. M.Bitton, after hastily deleting what I wrote, justified his action by stating: "That's not what the source says + it's from the 19th century (not 16th)".

M.Bitton was clearly talking about the dating of the manuscript, which is the only source I assigned a date to, not about the source I actually cited in the footnote, which I never assigned to the 16th century. So, either M.Bitton lacks basic reading comprehension skills, and therefore made this blunder out of poor reading skills, or, as I proposed earlier, didn't actually read the source I mentioned, and thought the manuscript was dated to the 19th century, which, as I've already amply demonstrated, is wrong, since the manuscript's date is assigned to the 16th century in page 81.

So, regardless of the nature of M.Bitton's blunder, it is clear that he mistakenly deleted my first contribution, without however acknowledging his undeniable error.

This should be carefully taken note of by all the editors and moderators interested in this discussion: not acknowledging a mistake, despite being amply proven wrong several times, is indeed a sign of bad faith. So, one should consider whether M.Bitton is honestly trying to supervise the quality of this Wikipedia article, or if, by deleting my contributions repeatedly and trying to have me silenced, he's actually doing so out of a personal grudge, evidently displayed by his lack of acknowledgement of his first blunder, which is what after all sparked this whole endless discussion. Italopiombino (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

None of that justifies edit warring. I have partially blocked Italopiombino for a week. M.Bitton is cautioned about edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Niceboi33 reported by User:FlightTime Phone (Result: No violation)

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 ([14]). 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 ([15]) as you noticed that during the typing of your message, the content reappeared.
  You then asked a strange question ([16], 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)
• (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)
• 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)

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)

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)

User:194.233.152.122 reported by User:LaffyTaffer (Result: )

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)