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:PaleoFile reported by User:Bowler the Carmine (Result: Warned users)

Page: Giganotosaurus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PaleoFile (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] (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Both users have been Warned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Those users and Mei23448 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems continuing edit wars on Monquirasaurus and Sachicasaurus articles.

  1. [8]

  2. [9]

  3. [10]

  4. [11]

  5. [12]

  6. [13]

  In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.[14]

  Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing,[15] while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  17 tons for Sachicasaurus has been debunked so I changed it and some user cant accept that his favourite animal isnt as big as he wants. Mei23448 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's talk page. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. Mei23448 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• @ToBeFree: The problem persists, Mei23448 and User:PaleoFile continue their edit war / vandalism on both pages. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for the notification, Jens Lallensack. Both blocked indefinitely, the latter unlikely to be unblocked any time soon. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Callmehelper reported by User:Srijanx22 (Result: Declined)

Page: Ambedkar Jayanti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Callmehelper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:20, 26 December 2024
2. 17:41, 24 December 2024
3. 00:25, 22 December 2024
4. 17:57, 21 December 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18][19]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]

Comments:
Frequent edit warring by this user with several editors on an article falling under contentious and general sanctions. Also edit warring on B. R. Ambedkar. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It's me @Callmehelper.

Clarification by my side ;

Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.

• Disputes details ;

1. Firstly , I edit Ambedkar Jayanti check history of that page from here to final version
2. process of reverting by others and my responses

• • 1st Revert My response then again revert and we had a little discussion on my talk page for this disputes see then i thought matter would be solved.
• But other editor revert again by saying no need to improvement see and my response of revert here and discussion on his talk page here

Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there see

Now I want to clarify that this guy totally misused the healthy discussion and try to show like there is editing warning on me about Ambedkar Main article talk here but this matter solve 1 month ago by further discussion on Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#Request_for_Administrator Review_of_Recent_Edits_on_Dr. B.R._Ambedkar's_Page

So here in ambedkar page, there is nothing issue about any dispute about that discussion specifically.

the current discussion on Ambedkar page is going on about my changes that is under WP:UNDUE or not about new fresh topic. check last discussion on talk page [[21]] this discussion is currently going on as there is no response given further by anyone yet.

so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .

Conclusion

So all my point is whenever I edit, i edit with much responsiblity that this should be based on fact and figures with the valuable citations. I gave explanation of everything what i edit with sources and editing summary.

Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.

i left a discussion on Ambedkar Jayanti page for further discussion as well but response are so weak in my POV amd also misleading my claim and sources look.

I think, i clarify my side well enough. for further discussioni am on.

I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.

Much Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Declined Discussion has started on the talk page. Let's let it play out. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Johnny test person reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Angelo Rules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnny test person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1265377722

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:34, December 26, 2024
2. 18:40, December 26, 2024
3. 19:05, December 26, 2024
4. 19:31, December 26, 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1265395592

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Aoidh#Angelo Rules and Talk:Angelo Rules#Unsourced character biography section

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1265406607

Comments:
Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - Aoidh (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Folawiki reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Grail Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "The claimed reason provided, "whitewashing", provides nothing concrete to justify such action. What is whitewashing? And what precisely in the edit qualified as such? Undid revision 1265465515 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
2. 02:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265464633 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
3. 02:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265460975 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
4. 01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240888069 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Grail Movement."
2. 02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "/* December 2024 */ WP:FTN notice"
3. 02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Grail Movement."
4. 02:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Grail Movement."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "@Folawiki: The whitewashing has to stop. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)"

Comments:

Cult whitewashing. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

User:TheHappiestEditor reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: )

Page: Trisha Krishnan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265170057 by Fylindfotberserk (talk) She works in Malayalam cinema.There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha. The total number of Malayalam films is not two."
2. 13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."

• Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]

1. [25]

1. [26] - putting fake sources/infomation [27]
2. [28] - putting fake sources/infomation [29]
3. [30] - putting fake sources/infomation [31]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [32]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

POV pushing/cherry-picking "Malayalam" and edit warring in a lot of articles. Apart from the above listed, the user has been pushing "Malayalam" as one of the languages in which "actor XYZ" has acted 'predominantly' in but in actuality the entries are only a few [33] [34] [35]. The editor has received multiple warnings for being disruptiove [36] and a recent one for edit-warring from Krimuk2.0. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

TheHappiestEditor, please respond to these allegations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

TheHappiestEditor has engaged in further edit-warring, with the same "Malayalam" language POV pushing, with 19Arham here here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Apparently, they do not want to respond here, but would very much continue with their POV [37] [38]. Also note removal of sources here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheHappiestEditor and I spoke on my Talk page where they said the following: "The information regarding Wamiqa Gabbi has been removed multiple times despite being supported by reliable sources, such as [1]. This violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Could we discuss this further to reach a consensus?" 19Arham (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:103.84.130.238 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Page protected)

Page: Hariprasad Chaurasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 103.84.130.238 (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 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) to 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262480024 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
   2. 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC) ""https://www.hariprasadchaurasia.com" check the site pandit is part of his name , the site is run by him, also there are other similar cases too on wikipedia [for example-Pandit Shivkumar Sharma [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivkumar_Sharma ]"
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]
5. [42]
6. [43]
7. [44]
8. [45]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [46]
2. [47]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about WP:NCIN and MOS:HON in edit summaries and warnings Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The IP was initially reported to AIV, since disruptive edits continued after a level 4 warning, but was asked to report it here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree Sadly, the IP is now doing the exact same thing over at the article Shivkumar Sharma (diff). — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Johnny test person reported by User:ToBeFree (Result:Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Angelo Rules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Johnny test person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265440086 by ToBeFree (talk)"
2. 19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265401281 by Codename AD (talk)"
3. 19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395978 by Codename AD (talk)"
4. 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395008 by Aoidh (talk)"
5. 18:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265382744 by Aoidh (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (Special:Diff/1265613452) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Two day old account with 19 edits, a block, and that personal attack? Bye. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Infinty 0 reported by User:Amigao (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Automotive industry in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Infinty 0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning given

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Automotive_industry_in_China#EU_technology_transfer_demand

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [49]

Comments:
This user continued to revert even after a 3RR warning was provided on the user's talk page. The user does not seem to want to address substantive issues on talk to reach consensus and instead prefers to engage in NPOV, WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and ad hominem attacks. - Amigao (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, the user @Amigao made a substantial change to the article without explanation or consensus (as can be clearly seen from the article edit history) before any useful discussion took place. He had always emphasized that edits should be made based on discussion, but his actions were exactly the opposite. If someone is instigating an edit war, I think it is clear which side started it first. Infinty 0 (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

All my edit explanations are in the relevant WP:ES. If any WP:ES is missing in my edits to the article, please feel free to provide diffs. - Amigao (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

And ad hominem attacks? This is a very serious accusation, and I do hope you have enough evidence to support it, otherwise it is just malicious prosecution and frame-up. All our communications and opinion exchange is clearly visible on the talk page and edit history. Infinty 0 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:وقت الصلاة reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Hephthalite–Gokturk raids of 614–616 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: وقت الصلاة (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50] [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54] [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Comments:

Bonus WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS; You may hate Turkish people.. If you Look the userpage of "HistoryofIran" you can clearly see she is obsessed with turkish people.. Also very high likelihood of sock/meatpuppetry, I'll file an SPI later just to be sure its not the former. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Also ECP protected (I edit-conflicted with Bbb23 here) I was going to block the editor concerned, but instead I have reverted their latest edits and ECPd the article; they can discuss their edits on the talk page rather than edit-warring when they are unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Big thanks to you both! HistoryofIran (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Remsense reported by User:2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [64]

Comments: Guilty as charged. None of my justifications matter, since 3RR doesn't care that IPs can just slip into the night instead of actually engaging in discussion on talk, leaving a highly visible article in a broken state for hours because my hands are tied to fix it. Can't ask anyone else to fix it because that's canvassing. I've been given a lot of wiggle room here over the past couple months, so if this earns me a week then so be it. It's extremely frustrating trying to protect the most important articles on the site, so maybe after this I should just give up. Remsense ‥ 论 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Your accusation that I left a highly visible article in a broken state for hours is a completely baseless attack and should lengthen your block. Any administrator can read the article's diffs and confirm that at no point did I do such a thing. You're the one who deleted well-referenced material. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

As a related side note, it does not seem that the IP editor really cares to follow WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY in this instance. - Amigao (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Add to the above the following personal attack by Remsense on the article's talk page: [65]. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, when I notified Remsense with the appropriate user warning for this personal attack, they replied with get the hell off my page. This is a clear violation of WP:CIVILITY. Add it to the list. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to back up the complaint against Remsense here, as he also recently failed to assume good faith in edits I posted and attacked me personally as an editor. He then followed me and deleted another edit I had posted on an unrelated page afterward after I questioned his conduct on his talk page (which he then deleted.) I question whether his temperament is suitable to be a moderator on Wikipedia.

MrJ567 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a moderator on Wikipedia, Remsense is a Normal Editor like you and not an Admin Either. Untamed1910 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I stand by my comments on his temperament and conduct regardless.

MrJ567 (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Another way of stating this would be to say that you didn't follow the date format rules (why doesn't really matter), used misleading/uninformative edit summaries experienced editors have seen countless times before with BCE->BC and CE->AD transforms like 'Minor clean up' and 'Minor grammar cleanup', and Remsense left you an informative message to help you avoid repeating these kinds of errors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No violation Remsense smartly reverted his last revert, so 3RR has not been violated. However, this has not been Wikipedians at their best. The IP's observation that the cited source does not mention this has not been addressed; instead this edit war broke out over something entirely procedural which is not even policy. Further discussion should, I think, focus on the issue around the sourcing of "equitable" and whether that word should be cited in the intro.

User:72.134.38.53 reported by User:190.167.0.99 (Result: Refer to AN/I)

Page: Crunchyroll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.134.38.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 9

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

Comments: The IP has repeatedly removed languages ​​within the infobox website on Crunchyroll's page explicitly citing that the streaming service only has 14 languages ​​available according to its official website; specifically it has English, German, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Galician, Turkish, Russian, Japanese, Arabic and Hindi when in reality there are 20 the number of anime series and movies available in its complete catalog with audio original Japanese and with subtitles, only that Sony, the owner of this platform or Crunchyroll itself, have not officially made the announcement of the possibility of it expanding to more territories, more countries and more languages ​​without waiting for this to happen next. 190.167.0.99 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Declined This looks a little too complex for the scope of this noticeboard; I think AN/I would be better. But, since infoboxes are a contentious topic, I have put a notice to that effect on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:MapReader reported by User:Notwally (Result: )

Page: 1917 (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265942060 by Notwally (talk) It's a long-standing descriptor that has been in the article since early 2020, not that long after the film was released, that has been discussed extensively at least twice. You challenge it by going to the talk page."
2. 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265836072 by Notwally (talk) The page carries the full discussion from 2020 and 2023, which includes reference to the relevant guidelines and the necessary citations. You don’t just wade in a year later and change the article without resuming the talk."
3. 21:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265821239 by Notwally (talk) There was no consensus for your removal, which referred to talk page discussions that didn’t exist, or at least weren’t contemporary"
4. 14:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC) "Per RS, restoring the consensus position prior to the autumn edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 1917 (2019 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC) on Talk:1917 (2019 film) "/* Country? */ r"

Comments:

There is no consensus for this inclusion that this editor has restored 4 times in the past day, despite multiple prior talk page discussions. – notwally (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This editor has repeteadly endeavoured to force a change in an article that has twice been subject to lengthy prior discussion, ignoring all my requests for him to raise this on the talk page in the normal way. The diff he or she provides as an "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is four and a half years old, and not from the same account name, and doesn't represent any attempt to resolve the issue since it was a contribution to a discussion that both left the article unchanged and has been superseded by a longer more recent one, in 2023, that established consensus. Pitching up four years later and trying to force a change after a discussion in which you took part - under a different account name - simply because you disagree with the outcome and without resuming the conversation or taking any account of a lengthy further discussion in which this editor apparently did not take part, is disruptive editing.

MapReader (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)