Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Dabomb87 reported by Locke Cole

Page: {{pagelinks|Flag of South Carolina}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|CarterSchmelz61}}

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. {{diff2|1289983086|02:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated short description"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is in a slow edit war. The editor was warned last month not to make the change again without finding consensus. Nemov (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Comment: Per WP:3RR: "{{tq|Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours}}. Correct me if I'm wrong here: Being involved in a "slow edit war" doesn't qualify to be reported here, not even in a gap of one month. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{AN3|b|24 hours}} Yes it can. WP:EW is very clear that users do not have to violate 3RR or 1RR to be edit warring. In this case these edits have been all the edits to the article for the last month or so. It has been noted as well that this user has been editing for a while but has ignored multiple requests to discuss these edits. The user's talk page shows a long history of warnings and CTOPS alerts that suggests this has been a long time coming. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh, I understand now. Thank you for correcting me here. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Daniel Case Am I okay rolling that article back to the status quo? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Actually, I'm not sure you are. US State Flag is a good short description; Flag of SC practically duplicates the article title. See WP:SDEXAMPLES, where Mississippi is formatted this way. (Agreed on the edit warring block, though) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Page: {{pagelinks|Orders of magnitude (temperature)}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|Onemillionthtree}}

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orders_of_magnitude_(temperature)&diff=prev&oldid=1290085696]
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orders_of_magnitude_(temperature)&diff=prev&oldid=1290085248]
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orders_of_magnitude_(temperature)&diff=prev&oldid=1290081181]
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orders_of_magnitude_(temperature)&diff=prev&oldid=1290055401]
5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orders_of_magnitude_(temperature)&diff=prev&oldid=1289405774]
6. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orders_of_magnitude_(temperature)&diff=prev&oldid=1289403761]
7. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orders_of_magnitude_(temperature)&diff=prev&oldid=1289077078]
8. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orders_of_magnitude_(temperature)&diff=prev&oldid=1289076638]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOnemillionthtree&diff=1290091605&oldid=1290088689][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOnemillionthtree&diff=1290088119&oldid=1289032096]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orders_of_magnitude_(temperature)#Revert]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOnemillionthtree&diff=1290102099&oldid=1290100454]

Comments:

I'm not a party to any of the content disputes involved, I'm just trying to slow the editor down and get them to reach consensus with others. To no avail. Tercer (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I do think it's worth noting the user's response to receiving a warning for WP:EW is to get quite upset about the idea of being in a war zone--I actually considered WP:ANI for this: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onemillionthtree&diff=prev&oldid=1290099034]. Sesquilinear (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

These two edits are also concerning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOrders_of_magnitude_%28temperature%29&diff=1290091450&oldid=1290090095 Calling another user a 'servant'] MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{AN3|b|one week}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Page: {{pagelinks|Cancer Alley}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|Patapsco913}}

Previous version reverted to: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cancer_Alley&diff=prev&oldid=1287654167]

Diffs of the user's reverts; Reversions on 13 May

1. First revert to replace table @ 12:17.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cancer_Alley&diff=prev&oldid=1290214180]
2. Second revert to replace table @ 13:52.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cancer_Alley&diff=prev&oldid=1290225721]
3. Third revert to replace table @ 16:01.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cancer_Alley&diff=prev&oldid=1290242463]
4. Fourth revert to restore other just-removed material @ 19:56.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cancer_Alley&diff=prev&oldid=1290274476]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patapsco913&diff=prev&oldid=1290231803]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cancer_Alley#Adding_the_racial/ethnic_profile_of_the_counties_in_Cancer_Alley]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patapsco913&diff=prev&oldid=1290278448]

Comments:

:What is the "other just removed-material" in the alleged fourth revert? It looks like Patapsco just found a better source for which counties constitute Cancer Alley. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Within that edit, for example putting back the {{tq|"The "alley" later grew to encompass ..."}} text sourced (as before) to [https://law.tulane.edu/sites/law.tulane.edu/files/u1625/LTR%20Cancer%20Rates%20v%20Pollution-Related%20Risk%202021-6-21%20FINAL_0.pdf], or (wrongly) reverting the word "rebutting" back to "refuting", among other restorations. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please note that I added the table on 27 April 2025 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cancer_Alley&diff=1287656981&oldid=1287656269] which was removed on the same day unbekownst to me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cancer_Alley&diff=1287656981&oldid=1287656269] I was cleaning up some Louisana items and stumbled across the edit which used "undue/primary" as the reason so thinking the concern that the table was too prominent, I collapsed it and added it back. Also, the US census is used on nearly every single geography in the US despite being a primary source as it is seen as the gold standard in population data (just look at any city or county). I did not see it as controversial since the section I edited was related to the racial and ethnic makeup of a section examining environmental racism in the geography deemed to be Cancer Aleey. The data I added gives the reader the info on the geography and does not make a value judgment. I did post on the talk page for discussion and he made something up about not using "primary sources" despite a long established practice of doing such regarding the US census.Patapsco913 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::You can disagree; that's fine. But why did you keep adding the material despite the disagreement? And why then did you go on to blanket revert other edits/improvements I made to to the article{{snd}}why for example revert "rebutting" back to "refuting"? It's edit-warring where none of the usual exemptions apply. Bon courage (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There was a talk page and we were talking. You removed the data supporting what counties Cancer Alley was composed (I presume so my table would then be unsupported since there was no citation for the counties comprising Cancer Alley); and then removed qualatative sources that environmental racism is being alleged (I presume since the racial and ethnic compostion of the parishes involved would not be relevant is there is not allegations of environmental racism).Patapsco913 (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That doesn't answer either of my questions. You were aware of WP:EW and WP:ONUS yet went to 4RR and here we are. Again, why did you revert improvements like the rebut/refute correction? Bon courage (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::So you are going to hang your argument on subtle word meanings between using "rebut" and "refute". It was part of a larger edit restoring the list of parishes in Cancer Alley as well as a map indicating such which you dseem to be unecessary.Patapsco913 (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well. let the administrator make his judgment. We have a talk page to discuss this. I disagree with your position on not being able to use census data to show population composition and the requirement that I can only used wholly verified medical references to determine what parishes make up Cancer Alley.Patapsco913 (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The only issue here is whether you were edit warring in a way not exempted by policy (e.g. to remove defamatory biographical information). The fact you don't seem to care about "subtle word meaning" (actually not subtle) in your haste to reverse my improvements, compounds the issue here, alongside your attempt to personalize and obfuscate.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patapsco913&diff=prev&oldid=1290264543] Bon courage (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent|7}}{{AN3|noex}} In the strictest sense as I am not quite sure that the fourth edit counts as a revert, and edit warring on the page has stopped since you began sniping at each other about whether you were edit warring here. Which is yet another example of a phenomenon we see here entirely too much—the discussion at the report page which, had it taken place on the article talk page, might have obviated entirely the need or perceived need to file the report.

That said, I will not be so sanguine, nor do I imagine another admin would be, if this behavior persists from either of you. The above discussion evinces a clear breakdown of the ability to assume good faith on both your parts, and that is never a good thing. If this is what we see more of in the future, sanctions on both of you can be expected. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Page: {{pagelinks|Woolston railway station}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|Lawrence 979}}

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. {{diff2|1290278170|20:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)}} "Partially reverted edit (for now) as the 'monday-saturday only' mention is a legimate mention, in that there are indeed no Sunday Southern services"
2. {{diff2|1290225970|13:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 1290225880 by Murgatroyd49 (talk) See your talk page"
3. {{diff2|1290225477|13:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 1290224224 by Murgatroyd49 (talk)"
4. {{diff2|1290218657|12:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)}} "Added a source to Southern's timetable"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. {{diff2|1290279994|20:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Murgatroyd49}} "/* Woolston station */ Reply"

Comments:

User has opened a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject UK Railways, but I’m concerned he is still reverting after being told not to and has now reached 4 reverts Danners430 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:That fourth edit is nothing to do with that topic which we are having the discussion about, but you reverted it anyway just because it had my name on it, despite that edit purposely excluding Netley station from public page (it is in the code, but the typical reader will not see that information). There are many cases where stations don't have sunday services, or even saturday services, so consequently mention "Monday-Saturday only" in the infobox, and consequently is legitimate information for any reader, provided it follows existing precedent. Also with some of those reversions, that was done after the issue of the edits being unsourced was resolved by me by providing a source from a trusted website (Southern Railway's official website). Even if it isn't the most clear source, the information can be found within, and I have also found the PDF variant (covering until December 2025) where the information can be accessed more easily by using ctrl+f and typing in Netley (which appears twice, once for a morning service and once for an evening service), so that may be a better source potentially. Lawrence 979 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Your fourth edit literally has the edit summary “partially reverted edit”… we’re discussing the content dispute as we speak. Danners430 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I said "partially reverted", because the only section I reverted was a side-edit which should have really been on the article since June 2024. The whole section we are discussing was not reinstated to the article following the dispute. Lawrence 979 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Page: {{pagelinks|Christ myth theory}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|Joshua Jonathan}}

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290347965
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290345903

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#Hello._This_message_is_being_sent_to_inform_you_that_there_is_currently_a_discussion_involving_you_at_Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring_regarding_a_possible_violation_of_Wikipedia's_policy_on_edit_warring._Thank_you.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Inadequate_sources

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#Hello._This_message_is_being_sent_to_inform_you_that_there_is_currently_a_discussion_involving_you_at_Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring_regarding_a_possible_violation_of_Wikipedia's_policy_on_edit_warring._Thank_you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.99.101.165 (talk • contribs) 14 may 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

• {{u|Joshua Jonathan}} made two reverts; there seems to be IP address hopping involved. When Joshua Jonathan stopped, {{u|Ramos1990}} joined and edit warred with edit summaries telling others not to; they're {{AN3|b|24 hours}}. The page is semi-protected for a year to prevent further IP address hopping. Neither {{u|Joshua Jonathan}} nor {{u|Ramos1990}} should restore the disputed content; if it is the result of a consensus, others who helped building it can do this job. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think this is fair:

::* This IP reverted me two times [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=1290347367&oldid=1290345903 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=next&oldid=1290347965 diff], for which I warned them at their talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A58.99.101.165&diff=1290345924&oldid=1290088639 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A58.99.101.165&diff=1290348024&oldid=1290347986 diff];

::* then they reverted Ramos1990 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=1290350367&oldid=1290350098 diff];

::* after that, IP 2904 reverted Ramos1990 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=1290350367&oldid=1290350098 diff], edit-summary "Pov pushing by two usual suspects ad infinitum." This is likely a sock of :User:DangalOh, who's following me around using various 2409 IP-adresses; see :Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DangalOh

::* when they were reverted, IP 58 removed another source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=1290351012&oldid=1290350906 diff]. On top at that, they started noticeboard-hopping; see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.99.101.165 User contributions for 58.99.101.165].

::And notice also :Talk:Christ myth theory#Non-academic sources, where IP 58 objects against using blog-posts, while none were removed. :User:Slatersteven asked "what blog is being talked about?", which reminded me that blogs by Ehrman and Hurtado were discussed at Historicity of Jesus: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=1287491993&oldid=1287491851 diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=next&oldid=1287491993 diff], :Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Ehrman and Hurtado. It looks like this IP is not new. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Preventing the other side from editing the article for a year isn't fair enough to your side? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Page: {{pagelinks|Pig Goat Banana Cricket}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|Grownarwahl}}

Previous version reverted to: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pig_Goat_Banana_Cricket&diff=1289279816&oldid=1280847785]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pig_Goat_Banana_Cricket&diff=next&oldid=1289295169]
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pig_Goat_Banana_Cricket&diff=next&oldid=1289385099]
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pig_Goat_Banana_Cricket&diff=1290204797&oldid=1289433049]
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pig_Goat_Banana_Cricket&diff=next&oldid=1290241866]
5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pig_Goat_Banana_Cricket&diff=next&oldid=1290390047]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grownarwahl&diff=prev&oldid=1290390148]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grownarwahl&diff=prev&oldid=1290477653]

Comments:

Prior to my involvement in this, {{U|Carlinal}} had already reverted a few times and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grownarwahl&diff=prev&oldid=1289432641 warned the user] regarding adding unsourced info in the article. Despite this, even when I had begun reverting their unsourced edits within the article, the user is continuing to revert their unsourced edits in without any edit summaries whatsoever. Magitroopa (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Page: {{pagelinks|20 July plot}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|Barry Wom}} and anonymous using different IPs

Previous version reverted to: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=20_July_plot&diff=prev&oldid=1290310741]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=20_July_plot&diff=prev&oldid=1286705355]
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=20_July_plot&diff=prev&oldid=1287038469]
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=20_July_plot&diff=prev&oldid=1290254086]
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=20_July_plot&diff=prev&oldid=1290587327]

Comments:

I want to report these users who are engaged in this absurd edit war. One can evade blocks as often as they want, and Barry Wom, a longtime user, isn't setting an example by reporting this war and stoops to the level of the offender. It can't be denied that the offender writes well and provides the correct sources, but this war must still stop. There was no attempt at conciliation, nor was there a warning of three edits, not even on the users' pages. Both deserve to be blocked indefinitely. 2800:E2:B880:799:D89:7175:9869:4321 (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{AN3|b|6 months}}. The {{rangevandal|179.1.219.192/30}}. Otherwise, I consider this report malicious as, since the reporting IP has only made these two edits and resolves to central Colombia as well, I suspect strongly that it is the same block evader (notice the utterly unnececssary praise for the IP who "writes well"—yeah, even without looking at the RevDel'ed edits you can see this is someone who really rises to the occasion) so I will be blocking that /64 as well. (And, yes, reverting a sock of a banned or blocked user is sort of another time it's OK to go beyond 3RR). Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Page: {{pagelinks|Longmont High School}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|JamesMcCloy11}}

Previous version reverted to: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longmont_High_School&oldid=1283716759]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. {{diff2|1290591012|18:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 1290590873 by LaffyTaffer (talk)"
2. {{diff2|1290589701|18:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 1290589177 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
3. {{diff2|1290582897|17:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 1290471509 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
4. {{diff2|1290465037|23:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 1290433928 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. {{diff2|1290590159|18:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on :Longmont High School."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. {{diff2|1290590504|18:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Longmont High School}} "/* Recent additions to the Music section */ new section"

Comments:

• Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Changed to a sitewide indefinite block because of vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)