When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understandWP: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.
Violations of other restrictions, likeWP: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 abehavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from abold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregiouspoint of view edits and other good-faith changesdo 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. Seehere for exemptions.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comments: Premise: I hate coming here. Anyway, long story short, theGiuseppe Zamboni pagehad an animated image. That image was rendered via template, and that template wasrecently discussed and approved by consensus. The user in question decided to edit-war in order to remove it from the page. I tried to resolve the dispute in the talk page, but evenbasic actions aimed at avoiding polarized disputes were opposed. Even though the user seems to be well expert about Wikipedia's functioning, they performed more than three reverts on the same page within a 24-hour period. --Grufo (talk)00:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~ ToBeFree: It is totally absurd, I completely agree on that. But you don't find a patrol user getting involved in absurd disputes very often. Either they went crazy or there must be a reason. The truth is that ever since I proposedthis amendment on 23rd November I feel I have been targeted by a group of users. Part of that story can be readhere. My only explanation is that my proposal threatened the possibility of patrolling the “Recent changes” page in search for unused templates—or otherwise I have no other explanations. Whether my proposal was good or bad, it can't be reason for revenge. We have rules for a reason, and I try to respect them. Rules are also important for not enabling certain behaviors like bullying. My activity on English Wikipedia has not been particularly easy in the last month (you can look atmy talk page starting from 23 November), and the tension with a part of these users ended only when they were finally made aware they were exaggerating (and until then they just kept escalating). Obviously the case in question is of very little importance, but I truly don't want to go under the same escalation again, so I'd really prefer that we enforced our rules earlier this time. The user broke the rules. The user must be sanctioned (in a way or another). --Grufo (talk)02:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grufo, thismay be something worth anANI discussion, with diff links as evidence of disruptive behavior. But regarding the edit warring itself, page protection seems like a fine solution for now.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~ ToBeFree: Page protection can work too. Do you have any reason in particular to freeze the page to thethe version without the animation instead ofthe one with the animation? One of the requirements to delete a template (especially immediately after it has been discussed) is that it becomes unused. At least some of the users in question have already shown the will to orphan a module only for the sake of deleting it (luckily they fully understood that would mean crossing a red line, so they did not proceed), and I suspect we might be in front of a similar scenario. --Grufo (talk)02:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then may I ask you to restore the version that was not imposed by breaking the rules? There is a talk page were it can be easily decided to opt differently, in case. --Grufo (talk)03:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have blocked the reported temporary account for a month, but it seems it's not the only temporary account involved, so I'll consider whether further action is needed.JBW (talk)11:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Repeatedly restoring an unsourced stub at this location. That one revert happened within one minute of the previous edit is a sign that they will not communicate. Previously blocked for disruption atTalk:Krusty Towers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)08:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is possibly an unattributed copy of content from a Fandom wiki, in which case it should be RD1'd. I don't thinkG15 would apply if it's LLM-generated, since there was previously an established redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)08:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Persistent restoring preferred unsourced additions to article despite warnings and reverts from several editors.tony05:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Diffs given are pieces of consecutive edits which restore largely the same material that was removed -- it's probably easier to see by checking thepage history)tony05:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous version reverted to: [redirect to the NOAA Awards and Decorations Page]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
The user continuously reverts my newly created pages with a lack of notoriety tag
He did it to this page too [NOAA Corps National Response Deployment Medal]
And this one [Intelligence Community Expeditionary Service Medal]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [I'm not sure I even can access the old article's talk page anymore. But I went back and forth with him over the notoriety issue. His opinion was that a medal has to be the MoH or the Victoria Cross to be notable. ]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
I am reporting a pattern of repeated reverts by the editor Chilloutpeeps on the article Tzatziki.The disputed content was fully sourced, neutrally written, and represented a previously stable version of the article.
Rather than engaging in discussion on the talk page, the editor has removed this content through multiple partial reverts across several edits, without providing reliable counter-sources or attempting consensus-building. This has resulted in an ongoing edit dispute instead of constructive discussion.
I restored the last stable, sourced version in a single edit and explicitly invited discussion per Wikipedia guidelines.
Additionally, there are indicators that may warrant administrative review for possible sockpuppetry.
The editing pattern closely mirrors that of a previously identified sockpuppet account that was active in the same topic area. The edits follow a highly similar structure, scope, and argumentative approach, including selective removal of sourced historical content and repeated reverts without talk page discussion.
I am not making a definitive accusation. However, given the strong similarity in editing behavior and focus, I believe this may merit review under WP:SOCK to rule out the use of related or coordinated accounts influencing this content dispute.— Precedingunsigned comment added byErdemozcantr (talk •contribs)02:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Again, a malformed report with neither diffs nor evidence of attempts to discuss and properly warn the other editor of this report. Also, it does not look like actionable edit warring occurred.Daniel Case (talk)04:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend re-checking the article and its recent revision history. The issue is not a rapid revert cycle, but the restoration of previously disputed content without prior talk page resolution, including edits substantially similar to those made earlier by a confirmed sockpuppet.Erdemozcantr (talk)09:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cansubscribe to aweb feed of this page in eitherRSS orAtom format.
Page protected~ ToBeFree (talk)01:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indefinitely~ ToBeFree (talk)07:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – for a period of2 weeks~ ToBeFree (talk)20:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Malformed, no violation (the reported user only edited the article twice) and stale (all this occurred three weeks ago).Daniel Case (talk)04:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
