Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive488

User:2003:DF:7F2D:6F00:7945:3AF3:B209:4C04 reported by User:CurryTime7-24 (Result: /64 blocked 36 hours)

Page: Symphony No. 13 (Shostakovich) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2003:DF:7F2D:6F00:7945:3AF3:B209:4C04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC) "AUTOMATED CONTROL ON YOUR PART !!! SHAMEFUL !!!"
2. 03:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC) "Provide a REASON when undoing people's work!"
3. 05:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "Hey, twinkle guy, I think it is!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Symphony No. 13 (Shostakovich)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: German IP user has sporadically been reverting to their preferred version of the lead since June 2022. In the last day, however, they took to edit warring, which began with this edit made by a different German-based IP. I've explained to them in the custom message appended to the warning that their choice of lead contains original research and subjective language. In the same message, I also invited them to discuss the problem on the article talk page, as well as seek help from WP:TEAHOUSE if needed. However, they either did not read my messages or chose to ignore them. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I also requested page protection earlier due to IP-hopping and false claims of vandalism. Mellk (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2603:8080:13F0:7C90:CC2A:BC1E:2322:A3B6 reported by User:Peaceray (Result: /64 range blocked one week)

Page:

• Alexandr Wang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Scale AI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Theranos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

User being reported: 2603:8080:13F0:7C90:CC2A:BC1E:2322:A3B6 (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:

• Alexandr Wang

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

• Scale AI

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

• Theranos

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned with this diff that states:

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Theranos, you may be blocked from editing. You added unrelated & material unverified by a reliable source.

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

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

Comments:

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#2603:8080:13F0:7C90:CC2A:BC1E:2322:A3B6:_WP:BLP_&_MOS:MOS_violations_&_removing_cited_material_&_citations_without_explanation

This editor has been constantly manually reverting edits that violate WP:BLP, posting uncited material, removing material without explanation that is cited along with the citations, & violating the Manual of style. Peaceray (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the /64 range for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2A0A:EF40:2A0:A901:5061:6C04:E201:E044 reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Already blocked)

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

User being reported: 2A0A:EF40:2A0:A901:5061:6C04:E201:E044 (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:

Return to warring, against consensus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Laurent Jack reported by User:Zendrago X (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Laurent Jack (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 14:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC) to 14:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 14:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Strength in legislative assemblies */Now i have updated the total seats composition of The parities of I.N.D.I. Alliance. I have taken the data from the updated wikipedia article of each legislative assembly."
   2. 14:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "Updated"
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC) to 12:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "Updated."
   2. 12:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Strength in legislative assemblies */Updated"
3. Consecutive edits made from 10:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC) to 10:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 10:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "Updated the State legislative assembly seats."
   2. 10:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC) ""
   3. 10:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC) ""
   4. 10:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "I.N.D.I.A have 236 Mp In loksabha. So i updated the numbers according to the loksabha website."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing."
2. 13:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page:

1. 13:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Zendrago X "/* Note */ Reply"

Comments:

Continually reverting edits back to their preferred version. The number of MLAs and MPs is already provided on the page, but the user is changing it to random numbers to make it look less accurate. Since the state-wise data is already given on page for every party, there’s discussion needed on where they’re adding it. Even after replying them on their talk page, they did not respond and restored different random number, their every edit has random number of seats in state seats count which clearly shows vandalism. ZDX _{(User) | (Contact)} 12:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Deedman22993 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

User being reported: Deedman22993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 05:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "Even if my account gets blocked this will be still reverted"
3. 05:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "Never gonna stop"
4. 05:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "What do you mean sock? Look at this article how ruined it is"
5. 05:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "Previous version of the article was better"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Basically begging to be blocked (note one of the edit summaries). Originally I reverted due to the concern it was a sock (still unsure on this, but I believe it is), but then they kept going. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

LilianaUwU: in an attempt at AGF I have asked for constructive feedback on the talk page, but I'm not confident. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It was difficult to assume good faith when their first edit summary went along the lines of "nah it was better before". LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for vandalism by HJ Mitchell.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Matza Pizza reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Page: Tony Dokoupil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Matza Pizza (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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:
Adding undue material to a contentious BLP, with generally unreliable and/or biased sources (alongside some reliable ones that don't support their proposed material). Their edit summaries and this message clearly indicate inappropriate involvement of editorial bias. It looks like they also want to add positive PR into the article. KyleJoan^talk 09:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Editor who reported me has edit-warred with no less than five editors on this article in the last 48 hours or so. This editor continues to edit this article in a highly biased way, clearly violating BLP rules, reverting the numerous editors who sought to insert balance. Editor also made baseless claims against me - both above and on the page itself - of trying to "add positive PR", after I added some human-interest nugget which I discovered while bolstering sources in response to her attempting to negate the ones which were already in place, and then falsely suggested that I have a WP:COI issue. (I don't know Dikoupil from apples). This editor has removed NPOV content placed by multiple editors trying to properly balance both the page and the specific issue at hand, instead presenting a highly misleading, highly biased, one-sided, BLP-violating article bordering on slanderous.

Matza Pizza (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

In the fourth revert listed, you edited a citation by changing a word in a direct quote. Here, you complain about "the young, internal woke mob". I don't think you're in a position to reference BLP or NPOV. KyleJoan^talk 10:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Jeff6741 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Human rights in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeff6741 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments:
User continues to insist on adding this material despite discussion on talk page highlighting WP:V and WP:NPOV problems. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

All the material I added is verifiable and as neutral as possible, and many words are from the source. Jeff6741 (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

See User_talk:Jeff6741#3RR,_again. Polygnotus (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Jewishadvocacy911 reported by User:ClaudineChionh (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Ilana Glazer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jewishadvocacy911 (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 13:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC) to 13:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 13:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 12:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 12:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 12:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 12:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Ilana Glazer."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Violation of ARBPIA and BLP continue on user's talk page. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Loodog reported by User:Geogene (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]

Comments:

This is a selective reading of events. My friend Geogene here left one comment on the article's talk page, which I then replied to, making new suggestions and soliciting for feedback, but never received another reply. Geogene's only further actions were to revert my subsequent changes which incorporated their concerns expressed on the talk page. My last edit, reinstating my last revised edition, again entreated Geogene to bring it to the talk page and I warned Geogene to be mindful of WP:3RR. Notably, somehow my warning to Geogene is being cited above as Geogene's warning to me. Geogene did not issue any such warning.

Now, given that my second edit was a completely different change to my first, based on Geogene's concerns, I count only 2 reversions on my part, while for Geogene, I count 1, 2, 3 reversions, none of which were iterative or different, and were literally just reversions of anything I added, no matter what it was, while (seemingly) refusing any further discussion on the article's talk page. Louiedog (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I linked to Louiedog's 3RR warning because it proves they have some level of awareness of edit warring policy. Continuing to reinstate edits that I have already opposed both in edit summary and on the talk page on grounds of primary, and undue, is edit warring. Including new changes that I'm also opposed to (moving controversy from the lead to the body) at the same time as re-adding the disputed content does not mean it's not edit warring. Demanding that I return to the talk page to repeat previously stated objections before re-reverting the disputed additions does not justify edit warring. It is just possible that Louiedog does not understand the objections I made, but that doesn't justify continuing to re-add the disputed content. Geogene (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Great! Would you please return to the talk page and write back to me so we can establish a consensus going forward on what to be included in this article, rather than carrying this out as a zero-sum debate? WP:3RR explicitly says don't rely on the edit summaries.

My latest edit that you removed was entirely different than my first, including a change to reflect your objection that the newer source only discussed Staffordshire Terriers. Further, my latest edit includes all the temperament information from the 2008 Duffy paper, both that which is favorable and unfavorable to Pit Bulls (that they are not more aggressive toward owners or strangers but that they are more aggressive toward other dogs), so this seemed neutral to me. Had you partially reverted some part of that edit to address specific concerns (as I had solicited for on the talk page), we would be making progress, but instead you wholesale removed even my revised edit. All this to say, I have been offering iterative attempts toward your concerns, rather than simply reverting to what I had earlier. Louiedog (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Hope3606 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: List of professional wrestling attendance records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Hope3606 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 01:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1250483569 by HHH Pedrigree (talk)"
3. 17:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1250480039 by HHH Pedrigree (talk)"
4. 16:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of professional wrestling attendance records."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours User's edits seem timed meticulously to avoid any three reverts falling within a 24-hour period. Sorry, no sale. Another example of breaking the spirit of the rule in the hopes of claiming to be blameless for violating the letter. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

User:130.113.151.234/18 reported by User:Hemiauchenia (Result: Page protected)

Page: Salim Yusuf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 130.113.151.234/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24] 20:18, 11 October 2024
2. [25] 22:28, 11 October 2024
3. [26] 22:51, 11 October 2024
4. [27] 23:03, 11 October 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Demonstration of attempt to resolve dispute: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Salim_Yusuf

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [29]

Comments:

This user is claiming that the comments are libellous, but this is not supported by the consensus of commenters at BLPN. The IP user geolocates to where the subject works, suggesting a conflict of interest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2003:DF:7F2D:6F00:4862:A106:2B60:7045 reported by User:CurryTime7-24 (Result: /64 blocked 3 months)

Page: Symphony No. 13 (Shostakovich) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2003:DF:7F2D:6F00:4862:A106:2B60:7045 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC) "Reverted"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Symphony No. 13 (Shostakovich)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Symphony No. 13 (Shostakovich) "/* IP edits to lead, etc. */ new section"

Comments:

Persistent edit-warring from German IP user. Although they were temporarily blocked earlier this week, they returned to edit war as soon as it expired. Invitations to discuss their edits posted on the article's and their IP's talk pages have either not been seen or simply ignored. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Inquisitor Shadowlord reported by User:MichaelMaggs (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: And Then There Were None (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Inquisitor Shadowlord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1248566111

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1250226973
2. Special:Diff/1250249900
3. Special:Diff/1250309205
4. Special:Diff/1250450068
5. Special:Diff/1250839774

Diff of edit warring: Special:Diff/1144701136/1250848007

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1249909812/1250756854

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1250849271

Comments:
Repeated reverts to re-add item of video game trivia after removal by multiple other editors, warnings on user talk page, and discussion on article talk page. User continues to edit war without any engagement at either location. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

User:73.172.168.34 reported by User:OXYLYPSE (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Fresh and Fit Podcast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 73.172.168.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1250784385 by OXYLYPSE (talk)"
2. 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC) "Re-written to provide a non-racist, balanced perspective. Alot of you biggots are showing hate, while critique is fair, bias is not welcomed on this platform."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Fresh and Fit Podcast."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC) on User talk:OXYLYPSE "/* fresh and fit page */ Reply"

Comments:

I am attempting to avoid becoming involved in an edit war with users 73.172.168.34, Xlifter9000, and 2601:153:900:3C9:0:0:0:1009.

They are continuously attempting to remove cited material from Fresh_and_Fit_Podcast in favor of their opinion/original research. This appears to have been ongoing since at least 25th Sept: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fresh_and_Fit_Podcast&diff=1247713138&oldid=1247712669 OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that all of the "users" are the same person, but I didn't technically check. They just behave the same. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Fairly sure they're the same person based off the replies. OXYLYPSE (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Knight De Roy reported by User:Patodonald1818 (Result: No violation)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:33, 27 July 2023
2. 15:46, 27 July 2023
3. 14:19, 3 August 2023
4. 12:50 8 August 2023
5. 21:16 13 October 2024

Comments:

This user insists on arbitrarily removing references in the articles Monroy (surname) and de Monroy without there being a consensus. Since last year he has been removing references and only leaving the reference that he considers academically valid according to his personal criteria, but his reference is not a book, just a website, the same argument that he uses to insist that said surname is Spanish. The user confuses a Spanish city called Monroy with the linguistic origin of that surname that does not have Spanish grammar, because Monroy in Spanish does not mean red mountain, it is not linguistically of Spanish origin.

For example these historical characters have a version of Monroy like last name, but their linguistic surnames are not Spanish, mon is my in French and Roy meaning king derivate of Norman English and Roi in French:

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Albrecht_von_Monroy

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_von_Monroy

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_von_Monroy

This user also whitewashed his talk page in the past. Which is also against Wikipedia regulations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKnight_De_Roy&diff=1219328977&oldid=1160455461

Please I request this user to stop deleting references just because he doesn't like them. I do not delete their references, and it is also against Wikipedia regulations to delete references without prior consensus.

Thank you so much.--Patodonald1818

• No violation. Knight De Roy edited the page once yesterday after not having touched the article in over a year. Patodonald1818 has made no attempt to discuss the content with the other user, nor have they notified them of this (malformed) report.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User:De Wikischim reported by User:Vlaemink (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:10, 12 October 2024
2. 15:37, 13 October 2024
3. 16:09, 13 October 2024
4. 08:42, 14 October 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31] (by Austronesier)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32] (= initial new talk page section), [33] (=entire discussion so far)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [34]

Comments:
This user is mainly active on the Dutch-language Wikipedia, where he has been blocked for over 45+ times [35] and is subjected to various arbcom restraints [36], many of them related to edit warring. I am aware that past behavior on other Wikipedia-projects should have little relevance here, but I mention it anyway to show that this user is intimately familiar with the 3RR and edit warring; something he himself confirmed here when he was warned that he was engaged in an edit war by Austronesier, stating that there was "no need" to notify him as he was "already very familiar with the rules/guidelines here."

By making his 4th revert less than a day after having reverted 3 times in the previous 24 hours, he's just gaming the system at this point.

For the sake of transparency; I myself have reverted this user twice ([37], [38]), whereas another user involved, Austronesier, reverted him once ([39]). Vlaemink (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vlaemink: IMHO, while WP:BRD is not a policy, a 3RR-report when you're the one who made an undiscussed split first is not a good idea. WP:ONUS is still on you to explain why we need a stub-quality fork. –Austronesier (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier:: With all due respect; no exceptional claim was made here. This was an edit, and not a particularly bold one at that, for which I immediately provided additional context on the talk page [40]. You yourself have stated that the claims behind De Wikischims reverts (that 'flagrant changes were made') were ridiculous and you too have reverted his edits. I reverted his edits twice, was that wise? No. Should I have handled that differently? Yes. But that's not what this request is about.

Frankly, I don't care if he's blocked or not; but I do hope that the admins will see enough reasons listed here to send a very clear signal to this problematic user warning him to stop this kind of behavior right now; because this is wrong and should not be excused by my or your own mistakes. Vlaemink (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Declined First because there's no 3RR violation and I don't find a repetitive pattern of avoiding it, second because the user has been discussing it on the talk page, and third because of the CLEANHANDS issue noted by Austronesier above. I also do not find the user's record on nlwiki directly relevant to just this incident; clearly their behavior over there has not gone unsanctioned and they seem to have avoided those problems in their minimal editing here. If there is more to this than meets the eye reviewing the instant incident, AN/I would be better. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:247:C682:BD90::/64 reported by User:CodeTalker (Result: Blocked for a month)

Page: Anoaʻi family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:247:C682:BD90::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 05:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 01:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 01:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 01:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Anoaʻi family."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeatedly adding the name and other information about a minor to Anoaʻi family. Has done the same on Sika Anoaʻi but has not broken 3RR there yet. CodeTalker (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month The /64, since the article is under WP:GS/PW. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User:ShawarmaFan07 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

User being reported: ShawarmaFan07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251286308 by Belbury (talk) Please, let's not do that again. I hope I do not get reported, but as Israel and Turkey traditionally eat this, the dish is not limited to the Arab cuisine. We can discuss this instead; I've added a question within the talk question."
2. 20:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251174497 by ShawarmaFan07 (talk) If Israel, Turkey, Armenia and Georgia are mentioned, then why is it deemed only as an Arab cuisine? Please stop, and discuss in the talk page. I asked about this over there."
3. 19:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251104930 by Skitash (talk) Israel is literally mentioned in this article! Same for Turkey! None of which are Arabic countries."
4. 10:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1250945459 by Skitash (talk) It is literally eaten throughout the Middle East. Not only Arab countries of that region. Israel is not Arab, neither is Turkey; Shawarma is consumed alot there."
5. 13:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */Shawarma is also enjoyed in Israel, Cyprus, Turkey and even Iran."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC) notified of contentious 1RR topic
2. 19:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC) warned for edit warring
3. 19:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC) asked to self-revert your latest edit or be reported for edit-warring and violating ARBPIA restrictions

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 14:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC) to 13:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Shawarma

Comments: User is repeatedly changing the infobox cuisine from "Arab" to "Middle East". After being notified that this was a 1RR issue, and also warned for simple edit warring over it, they were explicitly asked self-revert their 19:37 edit. They did that (saying in the edit summary that it was To avoid getting reported), but then restored it ten minutes later with an edit summary rationale for why their version was correct. They restored their version again today after being reverted. --Belbury (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Ole7777 reported by User:Johnjbarton (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Dispersion (optics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ole7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251539510 by Johnjbarton (talk)"
2. 17:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251537524 by Johnjbarton (talk)"
3. 16:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 14:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Please stop. */ new section"
2. 17:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dispersion (optics)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "/* WP:Undue content Generalized formulation of the high orders of dispersion – Lah-Laguerre optics */ Reply"
2. 17:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 2001:4BC9:A40:60E4:E5B7:79D0:E11B:684F (talk) to last revision by Johnjbarton"
3. 17:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "/* WP:Undue content Generalized formulation of the high orders of dispersion – Lah-Laguerre optics */ Reply"

Comments:

Please let me know if there is something else I should do in such cases. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24h. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User:George Loomis reported by User:ClaudineChionh (Result: Blocked 72 hours and given CTOPS alert)

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

User being reported: George Loomis (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 12:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC) to 13:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   2. 13:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
2. 12:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC) to 12:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "His actual birthplace is in Kishtwar Area of Kashmir."
   2. 12:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "His actual birthplace is in Kishtwar Area of Kashmir."
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC) to 12:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added Content"
   2. 12:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   3. 12:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   4. 12:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
5. 11:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
6. Consecutive edits made from 11:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC) to 11:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 11:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Birthplace is Kishtwar in Kashmir."
   2. 11:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   3. 11:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   4. 11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   5. 11:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
   6. 11:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Nagasena."
2. 12:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nagasena."
3. 12:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nagasena."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

repeated addition of unsourced birthplace claim ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Will also leave CTOPS notice on talk and alert on user talk. Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:ProfMoustafa reported by User:Ixfd64 (Result: pending)

Page: Lucas–Lehmer primality test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ProfMoustafa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. link
2. link
3. link
4. link
5. link

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

Comments:

ProfMoustafa (talk · contribs) keeps adding claims about a new Mersenne number primality test to the Lucas–Lehmer primality test article. I am not familiar with this person's work and do not claim to know how accurate his claims are, but the section was removed because it has nothing to do with the Lucas–Lehmer test and that we have a policy against original research. He has now re-added the removed content up to five times. Although I'm an administrator, I probably shouldn't be the one to take action against this user because I'm one of the people who have reverted his edits, and I want to avoid conflicts of interest if possible. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The additions are straightforward self-promotional citespam. --JBL (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional (and identical) cite-spamming was later performed on a more popular page (and soon to become much visited because of the newest latest find after ~6 years with no primes) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mersenne_prime&diff=1251551296&oldid=1247518036 . Same result, same behavior.

BTW, I acknowledge my received "‪WP:CIVIL‬" message and will adjust accordingly; I could have done better. Serge Batalov (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to note, in the last 26 hours he's now on 6 reverts restoring his self promotional stuff. Checked the article and found it there again this morning. – Mesidast (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe he should be blocked clearly WP:NOTHERE. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 09:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Hahonryuu reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Power Girl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Hahonryuu (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 21:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC) to 21:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 21:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC) to 19:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 19:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 08:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251332229 by Lililolol (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Power Girl."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A string of edit warring dating back a year as early as June 1, 2023. Clearly WP:NOTHERE to communicate with other editors and has ignored warnings in edit summaries and at their talk. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:194.38.172.194 and User:194.230.146.37 reported by User:Theklan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Carles Puigdemont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 194.230.146.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 194.38.172.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]
5. [46]
6. [47]
7. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:194.38.172.194#Edit_warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's a consensus over the first sentence of this article, with a long RfC. It has been added to the edits, and explained to the user.

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

Comments:
There is a long RfC available here: Talk:Carles_Puigdemont/Archive_5. The user doesn't seem interested on that, and is not only adding the word Spain in the first sentence (which goes against the consensus), he is also adding it way more times in the article. Theklan (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Tredanielsunf reported by User:Magical Golden Whip (Result: Declined)

Page: Raven's Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "show has ended, no talk page active to discuss this change. Sixth season cycle notes can be found in production section."
2. 03:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "show has ended and line remains irrelevant to introduction."
3. 02:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251613209 by Magical Golden Whip (talk) no revision notes or reasoning"
4. 19:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251513618 by Magical Golden Whip (talk) still no notes from previous revert"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Raven's Home."
2. 03:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Raven's Home."
3. 04:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Final warning notice."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring over Six Season still being deleted was reverted a few days ago as well. Mainly reverted due to WP:Not Broken then WP:DE due to the first warning I gave. Didn’t apptepte to come to a sense on talk page. I did release after my last revert I went over my limit and was my mistake, but was mainly trying to just restore the page with the sixth season being there as in my opion it was fine and not an issue. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Magical Golden Whip: While I do agree that the other user is bring disruptive, with all due respect, as you do a lot of good work here, I would kindly suggest you use caution from here onward, as you are just as guilty in terms of edit warring and could easily see yourself blocked as well, which I do not want to see for you. Whether you're right or wrong is up to consensus on the article talk page. However, while there are some exceptions to continuously reverting another user or IP, your edits do not fall under said exemptions, as listed at WP:3RRNO. Add: Also, given the nature of this, it probably would have been better to let someone uninvolved start this since, as I mentioned earlier, you are involved and just as guilty in terms of edit warring. Amaury • 07:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I should have handled this differently and will in the future. If mine was reverted by someone else who did seem to have more experience than me I would have left it alone. However should have stooped the reverting. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Declined per discussion above. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

User:1.145.52.239 reported by User:TryAgainSooner (Result: No violation)

Page: October 15 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 1.145.52.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "No. He was born in Argentina. Calling him British-Irish is incorrect."
2. 10:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "He was born in Argentina."
3. 09:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 07:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"
2. Also two warnings from @Felida97: Special:Diff/1251673482

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Already discussed on main article talk page:

1. Talk:Chris_de_Burgh#Nationality
2. Talk:Chris_de_Burgh#Ancestry

User has been advised to revive these discussions, but has chosen not to do so, see edit summaries of Special:Diff/1251662464, Special:Diff/1251660017, Special:Diff/1251658157.

Comments:

Edit war by IP address, has been reverted by many pending change reviewers multiple times, but keeps adding the same change. Has been warned 3 times, and has reverted 4 times, breaking WP:3RR. The topic has already been discussed on the article's talk page many times, see Talk:Chris_de_Burgh#Nationality and IP has been advised to restart discussion if they wish, but has chosen not to do so (in edit summaries and with the edit war warning template). 🔄️TryAgainSooner🕑 🗣️ 15:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.} The user has only reverted three times. The edit being reverted to does not itself count as a revert. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:2C1:C200:7090:34D9:F1F1:A52C:C34E reported by User:Nimbus227 (Result: /64 blocked 35 hours)

Page: Affordaplane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:2C1:C200:7090:34D9:F1F1:A52C:C34E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and 2601:2C1:C200:7090:8DBF:EDAB:FA06:84F5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55] and [56]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [57] and [58]

Comments:
Guideline shortcut links repeatedly added to edit summaries, no responses to either user talk edit warring notice on first IP or article talk page request. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours The /64, to be precise. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Lb01234 reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Already blocked 24 hours)

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

User being reported: Lb01234 (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 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC) to 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "The previous editing was based on citations that did not reflect the subject or were not from official reports by institutions responsible for providing accurate information. Some of the sources were mostly personal opinions or studies, not official institutional reports."
   2. 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "The previous editing was based on citations that did not reflect the subject or were not from official reports by institutions responsible for providing accurate information. Some of the sources were mostly personal opinions or studies, not official institutional reports."
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC) to 18:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 18:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "The previous editing was based on citations that did not reflect the subject or were not from official reports by institutions responsible for providing accurate information. Some of the sources were mostly personal opinions or studies, not official institutional reports."
   2. 18:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "The previous editing was based on citations that did not reflect the subject or were not from official reports by institutions responsible for providing accurate information. Some of the sources were mostly personal opinions or studies, not official institutional reports."
3. 18:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "The previous editing was based on citations that did not reflect the subject or were not from official reports by institutions responsible for providing accurate information. Some of the sources were mostly personal opinions or only one part historic studies, not official institutional reports."
4. 18:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "The previous editing was based on citations that did not reflect the subject or were not from official reports by institutions responsible for providing accurate information. Some of the sources were mostly personal opinions or studies, not official institutional reports."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing."
2. 18:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 rapid-fire reverts within the last 30 minutes or so, with identical edit-summaries, removing sourced information. There is every indication that this will continue indefinitely without a block. Khirurg (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they're socking with another account as well ][59]. Khirurg (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of 24 hours by Ad Orientem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

User:37.155.85.235 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Theodoros Kolokotronis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 37.155.85.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251884023 by StephenMacky1 (talk) He was perpetrator of the 1821 Tripolitsa massacre and he ordered several massacres. I don't see where is the problem. Trying to hide these facts is problematic, I think."
2. 16:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251883714 by Leonidlednev (talk)"
3. 16:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251882742 by Mellk (talk)"
4. 16:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251879443 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
5. 16:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251877920 by Mellk (talk)"
6. 15:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Theodoros Kolokotronis."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent edit warring and addition of POV material. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

He was responsible for 1821 Tripolitsa massacre. It is not a POV. Even greeks themselves are accepting this and boasting about that barbaric massacre. Where is the problem? 37.155.85.235 (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Hey man im josh. Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

User:KryptonianHero reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Power Girl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: KryptonianHero (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 03:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC) to 03:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 03:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 03:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC) to 03:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 03:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC) to 01:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 01:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: You are a suspected sockpuppet of User:Hahonryuu."
2. 03:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Power Girl."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Appears to be a block evasion of a WP:Single-purpose account, making same edits as Hahonryuu. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it appears the editor is intent on continuing their disruptive edit warring with this pseudo threat message at my talk. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

User:CubicStar reported by User:Nervren (Result: Declined as edit warring took place on elwiki)

Page: Συζήτηση:Απελευθέρωση της Αθήνας (1944)
User being reported: CubicStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61] (05:41, 18 Οκτωβρίου 2024)
2. [62] (06:59, 18 Οκτωβρίου 2024)
3. [63] (09:42, 18 Οκτωβρίου 2024)
4. [64] (10:24, 18 Οκτωβρίου 2024)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I cannot post to user's talk page. Comments are restricted.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is really the talk page that the user makes edit war to me.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Same as before.

Comments:

This user does not let me post on the original article, nor to the talk page of the article. He also doesn't leave edit summaries anywhere.

(I didn't find a procedure for non-english articles so I post here. The page link at the top doesn't work as expected so I posted it as external link.)

Nervren (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is on the Greek Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia - we have no influence over edit warring on other Wikis. You're going to have to take this to their edit warring noticeboard. — Czello ^(music) 13:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks I just found it. It's not that organized but I'll try. Have a nice day. Nervren (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Declined per above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

User:49.186.44.94 reported by User:R0paire-wiki (Result: Blocked)

Page: Abortion in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 49.186.44.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "ropaire bot is definitely broken/r3t@rded. can not read simple legislation linked in the paragraph. the legislation specifically cites "unborn child". ropaire bot possible illiterate"
2. 08:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "R0paire bot is citing incorrect quotes from official NSW legislation, citing "foetus" and not "unborn child" as is clearly explicitly stated in official NSW legislative documents. bot possibly r3t@rded?"
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC) to 07:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 07:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252004900 by R0paire-wiki (talk). bot is wrong"
   2. 07:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252004143 by R0paire-wiki (talk). bot is wrong"
4. 07:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "clearer statistics cited than the inaccurate assumption abortion support is growing and a majority. it is actually the opposite"
5. Consecutive edits made from 07:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC) to 07:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 07:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Direct quote from legislation mentions "unborn child" not foetus. Direct link to the legislation included. Anyone who edits this to foetus is deliberately misleading the public."
   2. 07:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Accurate wording directly from legislation."
   3. 07:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "corrected inaccurate quoting of the legislation. the legislation says clearly and specifically "child" not foetus."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
2. 07:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Reverting edit(s) by 49.186.44.94 (talk) to rev. 1252004406 by R0paire-wiki: Personal attacks towards another editor (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Strongly suspect the user to be the user recently blocked on this linked thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:49.195.79.115 reported by User:R0paire-wiki (Result: Already blocked one week). Making very similar edits and now engaging in personal attacks. R0paire-wiki (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours and Page protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2600:8806:2200:5000:8C19:5962:8FB7:EFEC reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Boys Town (organization) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:8806:2200:5000:8C19:5962:8FB7:EFEC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Cited the documentary and the investigative non-fiction book. Cope more"
2. 18:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 18:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Source material"
4. 17:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Added citations on the allegations"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Boys Town (organization)."
2. 18:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */ + Section header"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24h. Favonian (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Mahan reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [71]

Comments:
Short: User tries to impose his own edits without checking it correctly, which is also irrelevant to the personality.

First he started by putting these extra redundant information about the person Persianate[5][6], Sunni[7], which was copy pasted from Aq Qoyunlu. If you're not familiar, it's about the Aq Qoyunlu state being Persianate and Sunni Muslim, while the article Uzun Hasan mentions that he was the ruler of Turkoman Aq Qoyunlu state, which is logical since that's their main idendity, not being "Persianate, Sunni Muslim". It is irrelevant to Uzun Hasan. Can't verify source [7].

Source [5] is about Uzun Hasan, but doesn't explicitly state it's "Persianate", while source [6] tells that Aq Qoyunlu state was Persianate (nothing about Uzun Hasan). I know it is about the Aq Qoyunlu state, but the point is to keep it short. This user wants to include Uzun Hasan being Persianate, while he just copied stuff from Aq Qoyunlu article. No one is calling Mehmed II being the ruler of Sunni Muslim Ottoman Empire. There is nothing that indicates Uzun Hasan is Persianate and religion shouldn't be there either. But Turkoman should stay since Aq Qoyunlu is called White Sheep Turkomans in English historiography.

He also changes Persian name to first, instead of Azerbaijani, claiming Putting the official language first, ignoring the alphabetical order. So I don't see a WP:GF here.

The way he's editing (look at commas) shows also he's not quite serious. I also asked for page protection before, but nothing happened.

Beshogur (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• I have a similar report about User:Beshogur. 4 times removing significant content with verifiable sources 1, 2, 3,4. He receive 3RR warning here. The user was asked to write his argument on the talk page instead of deleting the content, but he did not pay attention. Persianate (national/cultural identity), Sunni Muslim (religious identity) just like this person's tribal background (Turkoman) are the most important characteristics of this historical figure. Uzun Hassan was the king of a land called Iran/Persia and his official language was Persian [72], even his signature in the infobox is Persian language, so mentioning Azerbaijani language in the lead is irrelevant. Typing mistakes like commas or lack of language skill do not mean lack of seriousness, please be civil. -- Mahan (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hello Mahan, WP:ONUS applies: The onus to obtain a consensus for inclusion is on you. You can start a discussion on the article's talk page (Talk:Uzun Hasan), invite Beshogur to it, convince Beshogur and others, and if you remain in disagreement, perhaps ask for a third opinion. You may not restore the disputed content until a consensus is found. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  There is nothing like "official language" back then like written in constitutions today. Azerbaijani was the lingua franca of the region (see Ajem Turkic). Why are you trying to remove Azerbaijani now? I thought the problem was order of "official language". The order of both languages is simply listed alphabetical, there is no hidden purpose here. I didn't add "Turkoman" add the first place, yet being Turkoman is the main identity of the Aq Qoyunlu state, which makes "Persianate, Sunni Muslim" irrelevant for Uzun Hasan. Uzun Hassan was the king of a land called Iran/Persia and his official language was Persian so what? Uzun Hasan is the one that claimed descent of semi-mythical king Bayindir Khan. You're trying to remove everything related to Turkic (even removed "uzun" meaning Turkic. Reason? even his signature in the infobox is Persian language that's not true because I found the signature first and added here on wikipedia. And there is nothing Persian there, it has his full name + symbol of his tribe + Turkic word syüzümïz (our word). Don't mislead people. This is slowly getting Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Beshogur (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hello ToBeFree, I will request a third opinion on the talk page, but I disagree with the current version that you undid because it has caused the changing of some content other than the disputed issue (like royal titles and name meanings). Please check again. Thank you -- Mahan (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Mahan, a third opinion only makes sense when two opinions have already been expressed and discussed. The first step would be explaining your position on the talk page and inviting Beshogur to provide his position too. If there is an agreement about a part of your requests, that can be implemented even while the article is protected, using {{edit fully-protected}} as soon as an agreement exists. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

User:81.108.150.20 reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

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

User being reported: 81.108.150.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252136694 by AntiDionysius (talk) you seem to have the policy backwards. 3RR is not limited to a single user. Along with two other users you have now done so 5 times, none of them with any explanation. If you have a problem with my edits, start a discussion on the talk page. If you are unwilling to do so, leave it to someone willing to follow the rules."
2. 23:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252136254 by AntiDionysius (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule"
3. 23:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252134118 by AntiDionysius (talk) "Edits without edit summaries are more likely to be reverted incorrectly because they provide no explanation or rationale for the change" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summary . If you have a problem with an edit made, then please provide a rationale for your correction or raise a question on the talk page for further clarification."
4. 23:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1251856296 by Lozleader (talk) Having lived in this county for nearly my entire life, I can 100% vouch for its existence. How about before reverting good faith edits you research some sources that either agree or contradict the position you are about to take. maps.app.goo DOT gl/VPe5dtC7z4noXPCv5"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Middlesex."
2. 23:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Middlesex."
3. 23:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Middlesex."
4. 23:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

User:49.195.79.115 reported by User:R0paire-wiki (Result: Already blocked one week)

Page: Abortion in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 49.195.79.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "more accurate language"
2. 11:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "wording was previously and deliberately misleading, using dehumanising language to describe a vulnerable group of human individuals. A "foetus" is scientifically a human individual, in their foetal stage of development. Unanimously agreed upon by scientists globally."
3. 11:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 11:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "clearer language without key categorical information omitted to dehumanise the human in foetal stage of development"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
2. 11:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Abortion in Australia."
3. 11:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to a neutral point of view (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated unnecessary POV-pushing and edit warring R0paire-wiki (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

global consensus among biologists: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/ 49.195.79.115 (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That is utterly irrelevant. You write in your edit summary that "A "foetus" is scientifically a human individual, in their foetal stage of development. Unanimously agreed upon by scientists globally." Yet you remove foetus because it's "dehumanising" and change to "unborn individual human"? This is blatant disruptive editing. AusLondonder (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

One of their edit summaries since says "... previous edit did not define what species of animal was in their foetal stage of development." is very disingenuous and in bad-faith trying to synthesise a justification. It is very blatant. R0paire-wiki (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This editor also caused a blatant copyright violation. This edit [73] is a complete copy/paste job from the very source they added to the article. Other edits are clear violations of WP:SYNTH in an attempt to push their personal worldview into the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of 1 week by Jake Wartenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I will also be leaving a CTOPS alert on the IP's talk page and a notice on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I strongly suspect 49.186.44.94 to be this user block evading. Very similar edits to Abortion in Australia.

Edits: 1, 2, 3, 4 R0paire-wiki (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That user has been blocked for 31 hours as well. Daniel Case (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Remsense reported by User:Avrand6 (Result: No violation)

Page: War of 1812 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Remsense

Previous version reverted to: [74][75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85] [86]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [87]

Comments:
I have tried to be civil throughout the entire process of disagreement, but the user in question seems to think he can bully his way into winning an edit war as a more experienced user. Now he falsely claims I have fabricated a source which is, in fact, a true source that was used to maintain the same point on other articles on this site. He has also been rude and condescending throughout the entire process, as I have tried to remain kind and understanding. I hope that an administrator can help resolve this disagreement peacefully and amicably if possible. AvRand (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That my null edit—which explicated the failed verification of a fabricated citation so that other editors would be made aware of the issue and judge the situation accordingly—is being cited here should more or less speak for itself. Remsense ‥ 论 12:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If you actually read the text as you purport to, you would see it does support a connection between the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars. AvRand (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

What page has the text that verifies your claims? A page number was not specified in your citation, because none was specified in the citation on Napoleonic Wars that you blindly copied. Remsense ‥ 论 12:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess I should try to make a case for myself and not make admins do all the investigation: I didn't violate 3RR, and I tried to minimize disruption by guiding OP to the talk pages with it specified that content policy issues needed to be worked out before they jumped to restore content again. They did so anyway, and were happy to disregard WP:V to do so. I hate pulling teeth like this, but if anyone has any advice for how I should better deal with situations without these, I would really appreciate it. I really hate using up my 3R "quota" across multiple pages and I hate having to treat it like a quota—but I don't know what else I'm meant to do other than hope someone else notices when someone fakes citations. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To provide context from my side: I was the one who created discussions on the talk pages, to meat out a consensus, and I went to two wikiprojects to ask for input from more neutral parties. He was content to ignore disagreements and revert edits with lines like "Nonsense" without providing support. Standard practice when there's a disagreement between editors is to leave the page as is while a discussion is had and a consensus reached. But he complained that the status quo page wasn't sourced, so I provided a source from a similar article. (A book I admittedly, haven't read in over six years/2018 when I was researching the War of 1812.) But that I assumed it would be a fair stopgap measure. Instead, he threatened to report me after addressing his concerns. He then kept on edit warring on the Sixth Coalition article. So I decided to warn him about edit warring on his talk page. When the user dismissed it all, I decided to submit this for administrative consideration. I apologize if i've formatted anything incorrectly, this is the first time in my ten years on wikipedia i've felt the need to go down this path. AvRand (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Because you admit you fabricated the citation, that should make it clear to you that you violated WP:BURDEN several times, and then tried to turn it around on me like I was being dishonest about what the book said and didn't say. There's really no defense for that, and the fact that you can't even admit you very clearly violated a non-negotiable site content policy multiple times and attempted to manipulate me and the admins in favor of some imagined "consensus" is itself extremely poor conduct. I'm not going to pretend my initial pair of less-than-helpful edit summaries gave you permission to do that. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, you're the only one trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes here. I was fully transparent with the citation. I don't fabricate anything. You can't bully users into submitting to your worldview through edit warring just because you're a more seasoned wikipedian. It's also worth noting he removed the Template AN3-notice page of content after he received the notice. AvRand (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

P.S. – I didn't realize until now what the OP meant above: I had no idea I accidentally blanked {{AN3-notice}} while I was removing the instance of it from my talk page earlier today: I think I clicked a section edit button that silently transclude–edited the template instead. My bad, just wanted to clear up that detail here. Remsense ‥ 论 21:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

User:14.0.158.69 reported by User:Windborne Rider (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Talk:One Direction (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 14.0.158.69 (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 09:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC) to 09:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 09:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Other content removal */ Reply"
   2. 09:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "per: WP:TP"
2. Consecutive edits made from 09:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC) to 09:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 09:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Other content removal */ Reply"
   2. 09:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "per WP:talk manual archive to keep the talk page at a manageable level"
   3. 09:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Other content removal */"
3. 08:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Other content removal */ Reply"
4. 08:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "see [[Help:Archiving_a_talk_page/Details#Manual_archiving]] we have tons of issue here and you here arguing over a talk page?"
5. 08:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "see Help:Archiving_a_talk_page/Details#Manual_archiving"
6. 08:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "As all the requested sumbit have been already addressed by editors on 17 oct and it is too long scroll down. please focus on the rfc."
7. 08:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "see Talk:One Direction/Archive 5"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Talk:One Direction."
2. 08:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Talk:One Direction."
3. 08:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"
4. 09:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Other content removal */ new topic"
2. 08:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Other content removal */ reply to Redrose64"
3. 09:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Other content removal */ reply to 14.0.158.69"
4. 09:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Other content removal */ reply to Redrose64"
5. 09:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Other content removal */ edit reply to Redrose64"
6. 09:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Other content removal */"

Comments:

The IP user is so stubborn about archiving when I and an admin disagree. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 09:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Withdrawing my report as the IP user seems to understand now the situation. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 10:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

User:89.240.222.124 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked 36 hours )

Page: DC Universe (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 89.240.222.124 (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 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC) to 03:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252168408 by MarioProtIV (talk)"
   2. 03:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252168685 by 89.240.222.124 (talk) not so super mario loser stay the hell out of it none of your concern"
2. 03:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252167416 by Trailblazer101 (talk) i am in no mood for this. last warning stop edit warrring right now. you may be an admin but you're not untouchable. this is horrible behaviour"
3. 03:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Source? If not sorry for for u but deathstroke and bane film is not staying in here."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "/* DCU edits */ new section"
2. 04:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC) on User talk:89.240.222.124 "/* DCU edits */ new section"

Comments:

IP has made repeated hostile remarks to editors this month alone, failed to communicate when prompted to upon reverts, and has repeatedly reverted edits they disagreed with on several DC-related articles and blames others of edit warring without taking any accountability or initiative to resolve disputes. Has even made personal attacks, such as in this edit summary comment. Clearly WP:NOTHERE to collaborate with the community. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

well if that's the case i'll go do something else then 89.240.222.124 (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

please block me 89.240.222.124 (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done for 36 hours. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Gymrat16 reported by User:Brotherbenz (Result: No violation)

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey_rink
User being reported: Gymrat16 (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [[89]
2. [90]
3. [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [94]

Comments:
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

User:SoNotBietin reported by User:GSK (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252263508 by Masem (talk)"
2. 15:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252261501 by GSK (talk): Some people will actually value it."
3. 15:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252260658 by GSK (talk) 𝕏 is the official text character in the X logo. I don't want to go to edit war, but please—it IS the official character."
4. 15:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252258206 by Masem (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Twitter."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Instructed the editor in edit summary and on their talk page to take their issue to Talk:Twitter.

Comments:

• Since filing this report, the editor is now very obviously violating the policy on edit warring. GSK (talk • edits) 15:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Orexin reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Joseph Stalin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 11:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252442931 by Remsense (talk) continue to not explain why he revet additionally criticism of something is not netural by default remisse cannot keep quoting vandalism clauses and other things without providing justification why if he has problem it better to go in talk part page explain what is whe the problem with my edits the edit are improve neutrality and correct inaccuracy in 1st paragraph"
3. 11:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252440584 by Remsense (talk) Has not explained how it violate neutrality there isn't person opinion on there threatens me policy violation when he violating it himself by being bot that automatically doing reverts faster than is humanly possible account should be reported resimmise unless he can give a real reason as to why revet aren't constructive threating me in my talk page hassassing me to"
4. 10:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252437852 by Remsense (talk) remsense said it was unconstructive edit and did not specify why or how was the case more over give the revet was in under a minute there no way he read it unless he's bot"
5. 10:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Adjusted article by ensuring neutrality. Improved accuracy."
6. another edit since this report
7. another revert

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */ Reply"
2. 11:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */ Reply"
3. 11:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Joseph Stalin."
4. 11:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "re"

Comments:

At one point the user deleted the whole article, though I've not mentioned it above as it's not reverting the same edit but is more of a WP:CIR issue.

User has also engaged in personal attacks / cast aspersions[95][96][97] — Czello ^(music) 11:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Ontheloop reported by User:Pentapotamialord (Result: Already blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [link to your edit or stable version]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Link to their recent edit
2. [link to another of their reverts, if applicable]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [link if applicable]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [link after you notify them, if applicable]

Comments:
User Ontheloop has engaged in edit warring by repeatedly reverting my contributions to the article Bhatti without justification. This behavior violates the three-revert rule and disrupts the collaborative editing process. I believe this warrants administrator attention. Pentapotamialord (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

User:223.29.234.202 reported by User:Ybsone (Declined)

Page: Lancia Thema (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 223.29.234.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Disruptive user not knowing the difference between model years and production years, stubbornly adding "production" as a descriptor for common model years.

Previous version reverted to:

1. [98]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [99]
2. [100]
3. [101]
4. [102]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [103]

YBSOne (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Same IP and the related 202.47.32.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are edit warring on numerous Lancia pages, also at Lancia Flaminia. Not here to work in a collaborative manner.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Declined You have not warned them in any way that I can see that they are edit warring. No wonder they keep doing it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that Template:Uw-ew was to inform of a noticeboard. YBSOne (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: please see the case again, this time with numerous personal attacks and violent outbursts. YBSOne (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I did take note of them this time but ... since this morning (my time, at least), they have stopped editing the article and have made edits to others that have not been reverted yet. Maybe they are taking the hint. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll keep you posted then. YBSOne (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

User:187.37.0.114 reported by User:Waddie96 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Caged IBC tote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 187.37.0.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252476882 by Waddie96 (talk)"
2. 11:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Caged IBC tote."
2. 14:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Banana box."
3. 10:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Proctoscopy."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also at Proctoscopy and at Banana box waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours since they did this on several articles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

User:The Blue Rider reported by User:RachelTensions (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Fiona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Blue Rider (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. Fiona: [104] - original large amount of content removal
2. Fiona: [105] - revert
3. Fiona: [106] - revert (editor was blocked after this one)
4. Fiona: [107] - right after after block lifted, redo of the same contentious large amount of content removal
5. Fiona: [108] - first revert after block was lifted
6. Tamara: [109] - original large amount of content removal
7. Tamara: [110] - revert (last revert before block)
8. Tamara: [111] - right after after block lifted, redo of the same contentious large amount of content removal
9. Tamara: [112] - revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: based on previous block being upheld for edit warring and conversation here: [113] and here, the editor is well aware.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tamara: [114] Fiona: [115]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [116]

Comments:

Editor was blocked for 1 week for WP:LOUTSOCK (they participated in contentious reversions while logged out, which was apparently an accident on their part.) On appeal, the 1-week block was kept in place by @CactusWriter due to the related issues of personal attack (calling people assholes), disruptive editing (I assume due to people's votes from RM discussions), and edit warring.

As soon as the 1-week block was lifted, the editor's first actions were to return to making the exact same undiscussed large amounts of content removal on Fiona and Tamara (name). The large amounts of removed content were restored and the editor again advised to reach consensus on the talk page before removing such large amounts of content. Instead of engaging on the talk page, the editor again removed the content from the two articles.

In a nutshell, editor's 1-week block is upheld for disruptive editing and edit warring (among other things), and the first actions they take after the block is lifted is to re-engage in the same contentious edits on the same pages. RachelTensions (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me correct your text:

Editor was incorrectly blocked for 1 week for WP:LOUTSOCK (they participated in contentious reversions while logged out, which was apparently an accident on their part.) On appeal, the 1-week block was kept in place by @CactusWriter due to the related issues of personal attack (calling one person asshole), disruptive editing (I assume due to removing people's votes from RM discussions), and edit warring. No administrator either accepted or rejected the appeal and it is still standing today if you go look into The Blue Rider's talk page.

As soon as the 1-week block was lifted, the editor's first actions were to return to making the exact same undiscussed large amounts of unsourced content removal on Fiona and Tamara (name). The large amounts of unsourced removed content were restored and the editor again advised to reach consensus on the talk page before removing such large amounts of unsourced content. Instead of The Blue Rider engageding on the talk page, the editor again removed the content from the two articles.

In a nutshell, editor's incorrect 1-week block is upheld for disruptive editing and edit warring (among other things), and the first actions they take after the block is lifted is to re-engage in the same contentious edits on the same page. The Blue Rider 21:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And don’t try to play the victim here. I’ve already provided the relevant policies to justify removing that unsourced, irrelevant, and indiscriminate disambiguation list from the article—it has no place on a page about a feminine given name.

Now you’re running here, reporting me for edit warring, which sure, I’m doing it. But let me make something clear: if I get blocked for it, so will you. You seem to think you’re so right, but you’ve been edit warring across three different articles—Fiona, Tamara (name), and antisocial personality disorder. You’re not going to get off just by painting me as the “bad editor” here. If administrative action is taken, don’t kid yourself—you’re getting blocked too. Have fun. The Blue Rider 22:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll point out that the editor in question is also editing the content of other people's comments on this very page: they've edited the content of my report here. Not sure what needs to be done for them to get the clue that editing or removing other people's comments is not kosher. RachelTensions (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And now they're reverting my efforts to restore my comment to its original state before they edited it: [117] RachelTensions (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above user is very purposely portraying misinformation about me on multiple occasions that I called people assholes that opposed the rename move, when in reality I called a single person asshole on a whole different page and the diff provided by Rachel clearly shows that it was in the singular and not plural. The Blue Rider 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The user continues to edit my comments and revert my efforts to restore my comment's original form. If you can believe it, they appear to be attempting to engage in an edit war on the Edit Warring noticeboard itself.

[118] [119] [120] RachelTensions (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

So, let's make it clear, you are very aware that you are spreading misinformation, you refuse to accept it, you revert my reverts to correct your misinformation and then act like a victim. Oh dear, you are also edit warring and you will also get block for it. Hope you enjoy your off-wiki days to watch some clouds. The Blue Rider 22:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree with the way I worded my comment then say so in a reply (as you have), but you're not authorized to edit someone else's comments. WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS states you're never to edit someone else's talk page comments to change the meaning, and what's worse is that you've again shown willingness to engage in an edit war by continuously reverting my efforts to restore my comment's original form. RachelTensions (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's funny because WP:TALKNO states that a behavior that is unacceptable is misrepresentation of other people. The Blue Rider 23:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

User:KianS.r reported by User:Lone-078 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Persian Gulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: KianS.r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC) "Removing unofficial names that are without any historical claim. Please add documents for claim if you want to edit"
3. 20:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Removing unofficial , without citation names if you want to add that please provide links that support tour claim"
4. 19:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Used fake and unofficial name with no references so I removed it because of having no citation and references that support that claim"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC) "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
2. 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent removal of content from the lead with the claim that it is unsourced, when the sources are clearly present in the body of the article Lone-078 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Aoidh (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Dmoran0 reported by User:Tamzin (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Central Park birdwatching incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dmoran0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [121]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [122]
2. [123] After partial revert by Epicgenius
3. [124] Further rv of Epicgenius and also of Viewmont Viking
4. [125] Partial rv of me. 1st revert in the past 24 hours.
5. [126] Full rv of me and Dmartin969. 2nd.
6. [127] Partial rv of Dmartin. 3rd.
7. [128] Partial rv of me. 4th.
8. [129] Full rv of TheWikiToby. 5th.
9. [130] Full rv of Snowmanonahoe. 6th.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [131]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Central_Park_birdwatching_incident#Disputed

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

Comments: This user has been cut a lot of slack, and I and others have been very clear that they need to gain consensus for their edits, which are highly SYNTH and POV. I've warned them about edit-warring both on talk and on usertalk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2600:100F:A110:60E3:8C6C:172A:2627:CE30 reported by User:Artpine98 (Result: /64 blocked 24h)

Page: Interpipe Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:100F:A110:60E3:8C6C:172A:2627:CE30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [132]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [133]
2. [134]
3. [135]
4. [136]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [138]

Comments:

All revertions of the IP user have focused on removing any edits. The IP user claims that all of the contributions are COI without proper explanations. That IP user may be a competitor or worker of a PR agency because all revertions were made on Fridays exclusively. Artpine98 (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 2600:100F:A110:60E3:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), that is. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Livingstonshr reported by User:ParvatPrakash (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [139]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [140]
2. [141]: Here, the edit summary of the revert by the reported user shows that the reported user is aware of the 3RR and flouts it despite knowing about it.
3. [142]
4. [143]
5. [144]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [146]

In reply to the above unsigned comment: - I did not go over the limit of 3 reverts on the page because I'm aware of the policies. I only added a fact with a precise statement that they were the author Acharya Yugbhushansuri's views, which was also verified by the source I had added, but it was reverted several times without discussion. When an editor is uncomfortable, they initiate the discussion. If I didn't, the other user also didn't and fully flouted the 3RR rule, but I didn't. The source I had added quoted the subject's most popular work and how it was rejected by the other sect in discussion. I am only involved in promoting addition of well-sourced information on pages related to Jainism. I do not promote any sectarian wars. If I have protected Digambara-related pages from vandalism, I have also protected Svetambara-related pages. I do not like the tone of the user who is trying to allege I've done something wrong when I'm well within my limits as the set policies bind me to. Please do not accuse me of something that I'm not involved in. Thank you. ParvatPrakash (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that the user accusing me of edit-warring just changed the whole report that was against him to one that's against me, without filing a new one. This page's edit history shows it. I request the administrators to please take note of that. Thank you. ParvatPrakash (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This report was changed by me erroneously. I note that currently it has been fixed by you. My apologies in this regard. Livingstonshr (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I request you to understand that the issue has nothing to do with any sect at all. You made an edit in the history section and deleted certain contents and gave an angle of sect. It is you who gave sectarian reasons for your edits. I requested you to get consensus on talk page of Jainism as the information was present since a decade (not your user talk page) so that others could give their views but you continued with your biased editing. Livingstonshr (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not delete anything from the section that was crucial to the essence of the text. I only deleted the verb "revered" because it made the statement non-neutral. Wikipedia is supposed to be free from hagiographic content, which is why I deleted that verb and corrected the sentence to prevent loss of information. Apart from that, I've only added content and haven't deleted anything that was crucial to the understanding of the subject. If you think I did, please point to specific parts from the section that I deleted. From what I remember, I only added content about Yugbhushansuri's and the other sects' views. Kindly understand that I did not bring sectarian mindset to this conversation. You accused me of being biased, so I refuted it by stating facts. I've reverted vandalism on pages like Pulaksagar as well as Sthulabhadra. There's nothing sectarian about my contribution to Wikipedia and I don't think this is the place to discuss that. This noticeboard is only meant to report users flouting the 3RR. ParvatPrakash (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

User:ParvatPrakash reported by User:Livingstonshr (Result: Page protected)

User being reported: ParvatPrakash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Page: Jainism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [147]

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1. [148]

2. [149]

3. [150]

4. [151]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [153]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [154]

Comment:

The user was constantly edit warring. It deleted info from history section of Jainism page (a good article tagged) present since more than a decade ,and added sectarian and biased agenda driven content backed by unreliable sources. I requested to open a discussion on the talk page of Jainism and reach consensus multiple times in the edit comments, however it continued with edit war and stopped only after I initiated discussion on user talk page. However, he still appears to justify his actions and continues to push sect wars using phrases like Svetambara and Digambara are the only two historical sects which is highly erroneous, misleading and non-factual opinion. Although there was no mention of sect anywhere in said context, the user continues to make edits through his narrow lens of sect. As per his talk page, the user has been involved in sect wars in past. I request the administrators to take note of this and take appropriate action. In the disruptive edit made by him given in 4th link, the edit comment exposes his sectarian agenda backed by sources which literally state the opposite of the edit made. Apart from this, I would like to add that I mistakenly edited a previous report and I take the responsibility of it. I just checked that it has been corrected now.
Livingstonshr (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

With due respect, I would like to highlight this point again that this noticeboard is to report users who have flouted the 3RR i.e. more than 3 reverts on a page. I don't think it has anything to do with an editor's mindset being sectarian or not. Well, in my defence, I've made it a point to not revert edits more than 3 times on the page because I'm aware of the policies. Thanks! ParvatPrakash (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, only to elucidate and highlight it for administrators examining this, the 4th diff given in this report is not a revert, but a plain edit backed by sources. ParvatPrakash (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

However, the sectarianism is ingrained in that edit comment. Would like the administrators to note that this isn't the case of edit war alone, the user was not making edits on technical grounds but out of pure lens of his/her sect. Would request the adminstrators to give attention to the comments of each and every edits made. The section simply states history of a notable figure without even any mention of the sect, however since it doesn't suit his sect's line, he chose to delete the information and continued edit warring. Livingstonshr (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The mentioning of the sect was necessary because the section is about Jainism's history alone. Not all sects are recognized as sects of Jainism, even by themselves. However, now, I would like to leave it to the administrators to decide upon the course of action because this noticeboard is not meant for this discussion. I reiterate that I haven't gone over 3 edits on the said page and tried my best to explain my edits/reverts in their edit summary itself. Thank you. ParvatPrakash (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The section simply mentions about prominent Jain figures in colonial period. There is no mention about his sect or any sect created after him. The section simply states some of Shrimad Rajchandra 's works and performances, and about him mentioned by Virchand Gandhi who represented Jainism in parliament of world religions. The sources you inserted initially & multiple times later had zero relation with the sectarian info you edited. Livingstonshr (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If your POV differed from my edits, it is still not reason enough to flout the 3RR. ParvatPrakash (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You can't simply pretend to be a victim of intolerance of POV, your edits were not in tune with the section and you knew very well that the sources had zero connection with your edits, still you kept pushing; and later tried to back it by personal opinions of somebody. Livingstonshr (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi User:ToBeFree, I welcome your fair and unbiased decision to hold this user accountable for edit warring. However, with utmost respect to your decision to lock the Jainism wikipedia page, I want to point out to you if it is fair to restrict so many users from making their contributions to the page for as long as one year. Shouldn't a substantial action be taken against user by restricting him instead of just giving some warning and then locking the page. Livingstonshr (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Livingstonshr, I prefer page protection to blocking you both from editing the page as the topic would still remain contentious even without your disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

User:SNUGGUMS reported by User:GogoLion (Result: No violation; reporter warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [155]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [156]
2. [157]
3. [158]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [159]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [160]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [161]

Comments:
He makes a bias statement about Lady Gaga's discography. He keeps writing "Disease" as the lead single of her upcoming "eighth" studio album. First of all, the news literally saying "LG7" and seventh studio album (which is also wrong btw since she only has 5 studio albums so far). Second, his assumption is also wrong because if he wants to include the collaboration album, then it should be "ninth" since she has 2 collaboration albums. This statement is wrong in so many ways. Making bias statement, and the bias statement is also misleading. Double mistakes! -GogoLion (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, this thread is for instances of making more than 3 reverts on a page within a span of 24 hours, which is not the case here as the linked edits of mine spanned across multiple days. Secondly, any warnings one gives about edit warring should be made before taking users here instead of after like you did. Third, the link of attempt to resolve is supposed to be on the article's talk page, you ended up linking to a diff on my own talk page. Fourth and finally, your accusation of bias is completely unfounded when my edits on count have nothing to do with personal taste or anything of the sort. You are correct about the informal label of "LG7" giving a wrong idea of count, so us Wikipedians should keep it out of pages when not the actual title and that is yet to be announced, but it's not for the reasons you gave. Don't mischaracterize me just because you don't agree with my changes, and this gives me the impression your report was done out of retaliation and spite. Either way, you overreacted here, plus shouting at me with all-caps in your edit summaries makes you sound aggressive and is completely unnecessary. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And frankly as I reviewed the report I thought you had reported them. Based on the clear battleground mentality demonstrated here along with the chronic edit warring, I might have blocked. So, Gogo, consider that a warning, especially given that you're CTOPS-aware.

User:Battles 55 reported by User:Cinemaandpolitics (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: 2024 Turkish Aerospace Industries headquarters attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Battles 55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [162]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [163]
2. [164]
3. [165]
4. [166]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [167]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [169]

Comments:

Fourth revert happened shortly after 24h, inside 48h period. I am reporting now since the user does not engage in talk page at all.  Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This is just one of many instances of edit warring on the page which had previously been vandalized by IPs. I have been requesting protection for this page for several days but no action has been taken. Borgenland (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Also noting this openly POV and WP:NOTHERE edit of theirs: [170]. Borgenland (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week Not a CTOPS block, not this time, but they are definitely aware of it, and this has been a long time coming. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Lunarwriter reported by User:Watercheetah99 (Result: 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [171]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [172]
2. [173]
3. [174]
4. [175]
5. [176]
6. [177]
7. [178]
8. [179]
9. [180]
10. [181]
11. [182]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [183]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [184]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [185]

Comments:

• Blocked – User:Lunarwriter 48 hours for edit warring. User:ObiWali is also risking a block the next time they edit the article unless they obtain a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you greatly. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

User:182.4.100.194 reported by User:Mhorg (Result:Semi)

Page: Al Mayadeen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 182.4.100.194 (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. [186]
2. [187]
3. [188]
4. [189]
5. [190]
6. [191]
7. [192]

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:

I cannot warn the user because he constantly changes the IP to circumvent the WP:3RR. Mhorg (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Stosseled reported by User:Nswix (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Khamzat Chimaev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stosseled (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. Special:Diff/1253832267
2. Special:Diff/1253827343
3. Special:Diff/1253716730
4. Special:Diff/1253641934

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Stosseled

Comments:
Despite long-standing consensus within the MMA project to use the website Sherdog as the source of fight endings (it's reference 151 at the bottom of the section), for precisely the reason that various media organizations interpret bout endings differently and changing from one source to another results in a lot of edit warring. This system has worked well, but seemingly not well enough for this user, who knows they're right and everyone else is wrong. I invited them to start a conversation on the project talk page, which they did, but they continue to revert the edit from the neutral version until we reach a consensus (again) Nswix (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

A long-standing consensus must be amended if and when it results in blatantly incorrect information that runs afoul of all other sources and common sense being routinely published, and vandals such as yourself reverting all edits that attempt to rectify the misinformation.

When you sarcastically and rudely say "[this user(me)] knows they're right and everyone else is wrong" you are not being honest because you know very well--as I've mentioned it countless times by now--that ALL other sources--all media, independent governmental bodies, all fight organizations, all grappling outlets etc--without any exceptions agree with me and disagree with Sherdog in these instances. You can not 'brabo choke' an unclothed opponent. That's undisputable.

Additionally I take issue with calling a version with blatant misinformation "neutral" unless it's being used in some Wiki-specific technical term manner.

If and when all other sources (literally all other sources!) disagree with Sherdog it is obvious where the problem lies - as is the case here. No other source agrees that this is even possible (to brabo choke an unclothed opponent) nor that these specific instances have been brabo chokes (as they are impossible in these circumstances and there is an undisputed name for these chokes in the fighting community (D'Arce choke)).

P.S. I've attempted to reference every single type of reputable source there is in these matters (who all agree bar the one some supposed guidelines supposedly insist on) and none have been deemed good enough by this clique of editors who lack the experience to even realize that they're causing blatantly obvious misinformation to be the status quo. Stosseled (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Stosseled: The way to amend a consensus is to get a new one through discussion, not edit warring. Being right or believing you're right does not confer you the right to edit war.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I think a check user might be of benefit here, as Stosseled's first edit for 18 months, and second in 2 years, was to come to my talk page. I suspect this is Justin.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the ES, and this exact line of argument, I actually think it's this editor. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jasper. I give up. It's sad that the Wiki can be so clique-y and make it impossible for anyone to correct misinformation.

Never mind the tens of thousands of sources proving me right. It's of the utmost importance to only use Sherdog even though Sherdog disagrees with all news media, independent governmental bodies regulating these sports, all the sports organizations, the organizers, and so on in these instances.. and even though no reputable grappling outlets agree with them.

It's so much more important that this clique of editors don't have to think and evaluate a source's reliability and conformity.

Bye-bye NEDOCHAN, Cassiopeia, and Nspwifdfb, have fun.

P.S. NEDO the reason for that is because I was here in good faith, went through the edit logs to figure out what genius of grappling knowledge edited D'Arce to 'brabo choke' for a no-gi MMA fight, to tell them why it's silly and ask them to change it back wherever else they might have done this silly thing of putting the method of victory in a no-gi MMA fight to 'brabo choke'. I worry for you if your mind immediately starts coming up with conspiracies that I'm some ghost from the past.

P.P.S Let me remind you all again that these are the guidelines - they say nothing of Sherdog except that they "may be useful" like the official website:

"In the column Method, do not use your personal interpretation of a fight result in the record. Using a reliable source is important. The official website or Sherdog may be useful."

Hiding some secret consensus somewhere (I still don't even know where) and relying on it to bash other users fighting misinformation is absolutely hilarious behavior. Stosseled (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Zombie girl509 reported by User:Asdfghjkl38 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Melissa McBride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zombie girl509 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_McBride&oldid=1250709869

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_McBride&oldid=1250754368
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_McBride&oldid=1250756031
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_McBride&oldid=1251083507
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_McBride&oldid=1251455704
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_McBride&oldid=1251800887
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_McBride&oldid=1252872248
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_McBride&oldid=1253665469

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zombie_girl509

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Melissa_McBride

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zombie_girl509#Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring_warning

Comments:

• Result: Both User:Zombie girl509 and User:Asdfghjkl38 are warned for edit warring. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

IP editors reported by User:Bri (Result:Semi)

• Page in dispute: C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan–ATLAS) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 103.121.62.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.251.10.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 204.15.43.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Two or more anon editors (and possible block evasion by a registered account that was blocked due to actions on the same page) are squabbling over inclusion of a gallery, while there is an open discussion on the talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Xaltrebor01 reported by User:Psychologist Guy (Result: EC protection)

Page: Macrobiotic diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xaltrebor01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [193]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [194]
2. [195]
3. [196]
4. [197]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [198], [199], [200].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [201]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [202]

Comments:

User is adding nonsensical opinions to the short description of the macrobiotic diet article including [203] "Harvard Medical School empirically, substantiated Alternative Holistic diet". Judging by their editing history, this is likely a WP:NOTHERE account. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Result: Page EC protected for one month due to promotional editing. Both sides are urged to discuss on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have left a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

User:TheLawMan85 reported by User:JoshuaJ28 (Result: No violation)

Page: 2024 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheLawMan85 (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. [204]
2. [205]
3. [206]
4. [207]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:TheLawMan85

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [208]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [209]

Comments:

You literally reverted me 3 times on the Pennsylvania page today, genius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLawMan85 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:3RR says "more than 3 reverts in 24 hours" which you did. And please stop your personal attacks. Wikipedia:No personal attacks JoshuaJ28 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. As happens far too many times here, the reporter has conflated the original edit reverted to with the reverts themselves. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Capitals00 reported by User:Adamantine123 (Result: No violation, protected)

Page: Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Adamantine123 (talk): Don't use misleading edit summaries"
2. 04:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 3 edits by Adamantine123 (talk): There is a talk page discussion, use it for justifying this bloated list, not edit summaries"
3. 18:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ekdalian (talk): Too bloated"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 06:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "/* List of people */ Reply"
2. 07:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "/* List of people */ Reply"
3. 07:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 07:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "/* List of people */ Reply"
5. 07:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "/* List of people */Wikilinks"

Comments:

They have been blanking the content from this page and edit warring with other users like Ekdalian, even though many of the entries are sourced. I myself removed some entries which required self identification by the living people and adviced them to go selectively to remove only those entries which are based on falsified sources. But, they've resorted to mass content blanking as only solution. Also, when I put a first level warning on their page they retaliated by putting a warning on my page [210] violating WP:AGF and displaying WP: BATTLEGROUND attitude. Adamantine123 (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Those 3 reverts from me are from 3 days while the 3 reverts from Adamantine123 are from recent hours.[211][212][213] This is a case of incompetence at best because Adamantine 123 never ever edited this article before but has jumped to edit war by using misleading edit summaries such as "Nothing there in discussion section"[214] despite the discussion was there for days.[215] He also has repeatedly violated WP:NPA by terming the constructive edits by the other editors as "vandalism".[216][217] By poorly justifying only 2 entries, one by falsifying the source and another by using unreliable opinion piece, this editor is restoring a bloated list without any consensus. This is all right after he escaped a topic ban from caste topics and was warned by Valereee that such a battleground behavior can result in sanctions.[218] WP: BOOMERANG is in order. Capitals00 (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Fully Protected for 2 weeks. There doesn't appear to be a violation of 3RR by anyone here, but the edit-warring by ECP accounts needs to stop. Black Kite (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

User:67.175.12.221 reported by User:Vipz (Result: Blocked 3 days)

Page: Josip Broz Tito (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.175.12.221 (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. Diffs listed in the previous report
2. Special:Diff/1253651501
3. Special:Diff/1253729214
4. Special:Diff/1254039544

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1254123546

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1254126495

Comments:
Previously and recently reported to AN/3RR and blocked here. This appears to be a very persistent IP editor with the single purpose of edit warring over "Josip Broz Tito" and closely related articles, such as "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". The IP keeps changing, but this is a WP:DUCK. These two articles fall under WP:CT/EE and in my opinion need a permanent page protection. –Vipz (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days. Favonian (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Robert92107 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Warned)

Page: California High-Speed Rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Robert92107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC) "Phase 2 is not proposed, but authorized with no detailed route or funding yet"
2. 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1252079490 by DracaenaGuianensis (talk) Prop 1A authorized Phase 2, but did not fund it"
3. 23:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC) "clarified status of Phase 2 in intro"
4. 13:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "changed "proposed" to "authorized"; see discussion in Talk for a full description of the need for this
5. 16:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "factual correction in PP1, planned -> proposed; see Talk for discussion; there has actually been prelim planning done on this, which is beyond mere proposing""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Future versus Proposed */re"

Comments:

Though not strictly violating 3RR, this user is clearly showing intent to continue reverting (e.g. explicitly saying they'd go against consensus, rejecting the 3RR warning) and has been edit warring in their preferred wording for quite some time now. They are discussing but also not stopping their editing of the article itself, so I'm requesting a partial block from editing the article. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by Robert92107 too, where the user has refused to engage. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Result: User:Robert92107 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Factual correction -- This dispute is over a misleading/incorrect modifier for the current status of Phase 2. The WRONG word is "proposed". Correct words proposed are "planned" or "future" or even no word at all. Work has been done on Phase 2, and no additional proposal or permission is necessary to incorporate this into the plan. However, Phase 2 is currently unfunded. This is discussed at length in the Talk section. FACTUAL CORRECTNESS needs to be a priority, and the current modifier is a deliberately misleading description of the status of Phase 2. Robert92107 (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I'm surprised you let them off with only a warning considering that's their attitude: they think being (allegedly) right gives them the right to edit war.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Gymrat16 reported by User:Brotherbenz (Result: Fully protected for three days Lifted early after agreement reached)

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey_rink

User being reported: Gymrat16 (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: [219]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [[220]

1. [221]

1. [222]

1. [223]

1. [224]

1. [225]

1. [226]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [227]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [228]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [229]

Comments:

I have tried multiple times to get a consensus on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ice_hockey_rink page, and no effort. Keeps reverting any changes I make, to the "standards" he set for a ice hockey rink photo. I've reported before, but it wasn't 4 times. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Also, deleted the first report of this, and the ANEW notice on his user page. Brotherbenz (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Keeps reverting the ANEW notice on his talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gymrat16 Brotherbenz (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

i am trying to negotiate with you look at your talk page Gymrat16 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Page protected Three days full. Talk page discussion can get a lot farther when you're not able to go back to the article and revert to your preferred version. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

We came to an agreement, thanks for your help. Brotherbenz (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I have accordingly lifted the protection. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Reverend Stuart Campbell reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Already blocked indef)

Page: Stuart Campbell (blogger) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1254015754 by AntiDionysius (talk) No justification has been offered for this reversion. Kindly discuss on the Talk page."
2. 23:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1253994035 by AntiDionysius (talk) You are required to seek consensus for your edits by discussing the matter on the talk page, not simply reverting."
3. 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1253857657 by Augmented Seventh (talk) No reason was given for this edit and the user has not engaged in discussion on the Talk page about it in the proper manner."
4. 07:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "As noted in the Talk page, the previous version is a plainly maliciously incomplete account of events designed to give a deliberately misleading impression. As such it is significantly factually inaccurate and Wiki rules permit me to correct it by adding relevant and sourced context."
5. 00:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Views on LGBTQ+ issues */ Quotes cited and removed are manifestly obviously from Graham Linehan, not Stuart Campbell."
6. 16:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1253705472 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk) This quote is of no relevance or significance to anything. I did not vote in the manner referenced. "Man says a thing on Facebook one day" is not a noteworthy event."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Vandalism */ Reply"

Comments:

The user I'm reporting is the subject of the article in question. See also open section at COI noticeboard: WP:COIN#Stuart_Campbell_(blogger). MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The user above is plainly now acting in bad faith, rejecting consensus views and deliberately removing balancing sources. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

See also this notice on user's talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Already blocked indefinitely by Star Mississippi. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually only p-blocked them from the article. @Daniel Case since you're here, would you or any other admin mind looking at their Talk to see if a broader block is merited. I'm logging off for the evening shortly. Star Mississippi 02:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

While I do wonder why we haven't warned the subject of an article so much from editing it (my understanding is that there's a COI/N thread on it), I didn't see much need for anything further at present. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This perhaps indicates we have reached WP:NOTHERE territory. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

ToBeFree has now blocked them indef without talk page access as a result of that edit. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @AntiDionysius @Daniel Case @ToBeFree. I had disengaged after it ceased to be a productive conversation about their editing since I wouldn't be online to discuss the block. Star Mississippi 18:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

When was it a productive conversation about their editing? Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Heh. Hi and thanks for the pings. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Miyanky445 reported by User:Ponyo (Result: Blocked 72 hrs)

Page: Oba (ruler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miyanky445 (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. [230]
2. [231]
3. [232]
4. [233]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [234]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [235]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hrs. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2605:8D80:682:E4A:FC80:D596:7C9B:7CD reported by User:Andrevan (Result: Blocked 60 hrs)

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

User being reported: 2605:8D80:682:E4A:FC80:D596:7C9B:7CD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 21:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 21:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "It is purely an Israeli claim, you have no right to edit that fact."
4. 21:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC) to 21:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view."
2. 21:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hrs. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Truthseekeruk2024 reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Compass Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Truthseekeruk2024 (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. [236]
2. [237]
3. [238]
4. [239]
5. [240]
6. [241]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [242]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [243]

Comments:

New user appears to have signed up just to edit war this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely. Looks to be NOTHERE. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Johnny Spasm reported by User:Ybsone (Result: Pblocked one week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [244]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [245] "I don't think it is fair & non-partisan to call it far right."
2. [246] "Calling it right wing is inaccurate"
3. [247] (no explanation nor sources)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [248]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [249]

Comments:
User keeps deleting "far-right" from Fascism article constantly. User was warned. Contentious topic. Please block. YBSOne (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Additionally user commented on the place of residence of another user as if it was "all you need to know about where his politics are.". YBSOne (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I can, however, say Mr. Spasm is to consider himself warned and should cease and desist from continuing to edit against clear consensus. As, despite expectations, the article does not presently fall within a contentious topic, I cannot even give him a CTOPS alert. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"Per a 1RR rule that was imposed in June, 2009, editors of Fascism are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction can be reported at WP:ANEW." YBSOne (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately that 1RR may not be enforceable. An administrator enacted that 1RR in a discussion from 2009 at Talk:Fascism. There does not seem to be any community sanction or a WP:CTOP that would justify such a restriction. (A single administrator can't enact a 1RR on their own). The best you could do is refer to Talk:Fascism/FAQ to show there is an established consensus and then request admins to enforce that by blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I would further add that any 1RR restriction, even imposed by the proper process, requires some sort of visible notice to be enforceable, and there isn't one above the edit window or on the talk page as there is with 1RRs imposed through CTOPS or CS.

YBSOne did not mention this until now, after I had declined a report they made asserting purely a 3RR violation. There's a word for this .... laches, maybe? Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have reported edit warring as was per redirect WP:ANEW from the warning notice I've quoted. That warning notice is seen by every one editing Fascism, including the reported user, who ignored consensus 3 times. Not up to me to decide which type of edit war was it. YBSOne (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

In most cases where we've blocked people for 1RR violations, this was mentioned in the original report. I can't speak (or, really, write) for other admins, but I wouldn't be surprised, if like me they first review the article history. I didn't see the editnotice until looking at the edit window on the page just now, and really neither I nor any other admin reviewing a AN3 report would have a reason to edit the page in the process.

And in any case, like Ed I doubt a 15-year–old unilateral imposition by an admin is enforceable under our current policies. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Also his third revert happened after the edit war warning from User:Firefangledfeathers. YBSOne (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

An interposing edit-war warning does not automatically make the next edit a violation if it's not the third one (unless, of course, someone has been doing this on multiple articles or in slow motion). Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Case, we got two more reverts today (1, 2). Though it's ancient history, this user has been sanctioned twice in the past for edit warring and once for repeated removal. There hasn't been a 3RR violation, but this is persistent edit warring despite prior sanctions and present warnings. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've pblocked from fascism, though not specifically due to this thread. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, WK. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is my revert considered "Edit warring", yet putting the words "Far right" in there without a source to back up this ridiculous claim is OK?Johnny Spasm (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It is sourced, but it does not fit your disinformed political views. It is also a long standing consensus, see FAQ. YBSOne (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Hyunardo reported by User:RachelTensions (Result: Article protected under new name)

Page: Hwang Hyun-jin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Removed false/ misinformations and misleading parts." (IP)
2. 05:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Please I delete it because it wrong info"
3. 05:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "This part is a rumor and incorrect"
4. 05:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "I deleted wrong part and rumors"
5. 06:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC "This part was totally unrelated to his career" (likely sock)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hwang Hyun-jin."
2. 05:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hwang Hyun-jin."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Hyunardo "/* October 2024 */ reply to Hyunardo"

Comments:

First edited as an IP with this diff: [250] Seems to have made an account after the first revert of content removal, and continued to remove the same content after account creation. Editor has no other contributions other than participation in this edit war. Editor advised to open discussion on talk page, and warned twice to no avail.

This [251] is likely another sock attempting to remove the exact same content. RachelTensions (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI, also reported for sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hyunardo. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Another one here and here and here and here

I have a feeling this article is being meatpuppeted by people coordinating off-wiki. RachelTensions (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Most likely, judging by the IPs pointing everywhere around the world. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Page protected Extended-confirmed for a week by Goodnightmush under its new name, Hyunjin. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

User:48f reported by User:CurryTime7-24 (Result: Declined, user retired)

Page: Romans in sub-Saharan Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 48f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1254349428 by CurryTime7-24 (talk)please do not erase onlly (as you did with a map without requesting discussion and approval).....and don't behave like a typical "BUSCAPLEITO" thanks"
2. 10:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "I have erased all the DAMAGE to the article done by a "buscapleito"...he has erased sections that are transferred/translated from other wikipedias (where they are accepted without problems) and he has also erased maps without asking a debate"
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC) to 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 14:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "added original reference"
   2. 14:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "added translation"
   3. 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research on Romans in sub-Saharan Africa."
2. 15:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Romans in sub-Saharan Africa."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent changes */ new section"

Comments:

User insists on adding original research to the article. Their edits would be interesting and helpful if they provided citations from citations from reliable sources. The one source they added appears to be from an Italian journal that does not confirm their claim. I have attempted to engage with editor on their talk page as well as the article's talk page, but they apparently refuse to discuss and compromise. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me like they're disagreeing with your removal of sourced content. They mention it was copied from a different language Wiki, which matches you saying its a French report in your summary. They would be entitled to another revert yet before they actually breach 3RR, bringing the article back to its original state before you removed the content.

It might be best to remove this report and take it to the talk. OXYLYPSE (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If you mean the "Rivista of Numismatica", there is no such periodical and it seems improbable that one would bear a name in Italian with an English preposition. The closest thing I could find is the Rivista italiana di numismatica e scienze affini, which does have a volume 6 published in 1893 as cited by 48f. However, upon looking up the source, which is available on Internet Archive, the cited quote was not available. I have attempted to engage them in the talk page, but they instead replied with insults at their own talk page, as well as mine. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem with me, user OXYLYPSE: I am totally disgusted by the harassment done against me by this CurryTime to the point that I am no more going to collaborate with the en. wikipedia (as a form of protest). I have written some history books, that I have published in italian, spanish and english language and I have never received the offensive comments and attacks that this CurryTime have done to me. Sincerely, I am shocked by the way this CurryTime behave....and that is why I called him a "troublemaker" or in his spanish language (I think he is from Chile or has Chilean parents) a "buscapleito". Regards. 48f (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Declined If the user retired (which seems to be a good thing overall given that he seems to be bragging about his incivility), no action need be taken. Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Bro The Man reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)

Page: Islam in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bro The Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [252]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Oct 30, 12:55 [253] Restoring preferred text.
2. Oct 31, 03:39: [254] Restoring preferred text.
3. Oct 31, 04:44 [255] Restoring preferred text.
4. Oct 31, 05:27 [256] Restoring preferred version.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [257]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [258]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [259]

Comments:
Bro The Man has performed many reverts at the Islam in Australia article. In the last 24 hours there were four, and Bro The Man has also continued to add more material in the face of multiple editors disputing the new changes because of neutral point of view policy. Bro The Man has removed well-sourced text portraying Muslims in a negative light, and has persistently added text portraying Muslims in a positive light. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

non-involved editor here but may I know what is wrong with "portraying Muslims in a positive light"? Abo Yemen✉ 14:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with a balanced portrayal including positive things. The problem is non-neutral changes combined with edit-warring. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Per article discussion page: Talk:Islam in Australia#Proposal to remove section: Views on Homosexuality, The admin, Nick-D notes "A problem with this article is that some of its text was added a few years ago by anti-Muslim bigots who had no interest in providing a mainstream account of the topic."

the article and my user talk has always been and continues to be available for you to explain explicitly why you differ in opinion. Bro The Man (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit [64]: Enforcement/upholding of Admin @Nick-D consensus and saving/rescuing their constructive edits edits. Per article discussion page: Talk:Islam in Australia#Proposal to remove section: Views on Homosexuality

Nick-D notes "A problem with this article is that some of its text was added a few years ago by anti-Muslim bigots who had no interest in providing a mainstream account of the topic."

User Consensus that Islam in Australia page was dormant: User talk:LibStar#Edits to Islam in Australia

Multiple Attempts at consensus:

• 1st Bro @  : User talk:Binksternet#What happens now?
• 2nd Discussion and arrival at consensus @ Talk:Islam in Australia#Bloated lead section
• 3rd Discussion affirming consensus: User talk:Binksternet#Consensus achieved: Islam in Australia.
• 4th and 5th discussions for consensus: User talk:Oblivy

Edits referenced:

• [61] : taking on board binksternet objection and identifying probable cause of contention(which they did not explicitly discuss). i.e. mention of the adoption of Allah by indigenous tribes of australia as a god figure in the Article:Lead of islam in australia
• [62] : Enforcement of consensus Talk:Islam in Australia#Bloated lead section ; asking user Binksternet to share their reasons on talk for difference of opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_Australia&diff=next&oldid=1254366742
• [63] : Binksternet did not discuss reasons for difference on article talk nor on user talk; therefore reinforced Talk:Islam in Australia#Bloated lead section discussion consensus. Additionally attached dispute tag '{'{POV'}} acknowledging Binksternet's differentiation : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_Australia&diff=1254478089&oldid=1254470099

Bro The Man (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No attempts at proposals or constructive [additive] edits suggested from both Oblivy and Binksternet. Bro The Man (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I was canvassed in by @Bro The Man once the edit warring had begun. Although I had followed the page following some early edits by this user, I was not involved in this content dispute.

My comments have been deleted from their user page but can be found here and here. In summary I said they needed to use the article talk page to gain consensus for disputed edits.

User @Binksternet brought the content dispute to the article talk page, which was met with multiple WP:WallofText comments and then a series of edits claiming that consensus had been reached. I saw no evidence of movement towards consensus.

I stepped in today when the user claimed in an edit summary to be reverting edits but was in fact creating a new version. After that @Bro The Man re-added some good faith edits which I did not revert, but I reverted an edit which in my opinion repeated the same behavior. I believe this editor is sincere but needs to engage with the WP:Five Pillars, study what WP:Consensus means, and stop the battleground behavior. Oblivy (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your endorsement of sincerity, that's actually really great!

I'm "using battle ground tactics"? You reverted the article way past the record of my first edit, after Binksternet and I stopped after two reverts. I didn't challenge it and moved on. That is when i rescued the additions of other editors and enforced the Nick-D consensus. It's those actions that Binksternet is using in this submission against me that we're discussing now.

Consensus was "do not use the phraseology that islam came before christianity. That religion settled in Australia". I did not use that phraseology. However the article has pre-existing information about indigenous groups holding islamic beliefs through an exchange of religious ideas after an early contact event.

I added citations from publications such as: The National Museum of Australia (Agency of AusGov), Australian Department of Immigration, and 2 radiocarbon isotope studies. One of which was retrieved from a muslim burial site in Australia.

These were placed in the body. However you reverted them, and I since not returned them. I did open a discussion on your talk page to ask for clarification on your objection: User talk:Oblivy#Islam in Australia: You have Conducted 2 reverts: 3rr reminder

You have yet to reply. Bro The Man (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. Continuing to revert while telling others to use the talk page (in your edit summary) doesn't improve your credibility. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Bexaendos reported by User:Jenes (Result: No violation)

Page: Vitaliy Khomutynnik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bexaendos (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. [260]
2. [261]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [262]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [263]

Comments:
I rewrote the article, which previously contained separate statements and facts. I will continue to refine it in the future. The last amendment is a generalization of the range of political meetings held by the politician. All statements have a link to the media. Before that, there was information about only one meeting. User:Bexaendos prevents the development of the page, holds on to random wording and cancels the refined wording. He ignores the offer to proceed to a constructive discussion. Jenes (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have always been as much as possible benevolent with you, but already it seems that you are trying to fool the whole community. You have been notified countless times (to which it is obvious that you have a WP:COI on this article, including you have cleaned all available versions of this article).

You say you are going to perfect this article, but let's tell the truth that other than whitewashing this article you do nothing.
The last change you have made is obviously removing well-referenced information and adding irrelevant information to the article, which generally has no place in the article. From the beginning I understood the strategy (because the editors who tried to clean up this article before you were less familiar with wikipedia). And after I blocked them you appeared in the article and in the same way try to clean up the article!
I avoid making any attacks by being polite until the end. Once the responsible team will deal with this case I will provide more details and explain. And until then I avoid to give you any more comments because I did until now but as we see it was pointless... Bexaendos (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The page looked like a set of facts. I managed to put together an article from it. Some sentences are imperfect. This is what the statement about one political meeting looked like, which I refined and got a broader picture. For what reasons such wording causes your indignation, we could find out on the Talk-page, and does not bring the case to arbitration. Jenes (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I only see 2 reverts, no edit war warning, and no new talk page discussion in almost 2 months, what's up with that? (Non-administrator comment) RachelTensions (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That's right, I didn't play in further recoils. A suggestion for discussion is contained in the rollback comment. As you can see from Bexaendos comment, he deliberately ignores them. That is why we need an additional look at the situation. Jenes (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• No violation During a content dispute the talk page should be used, which has not happened here. If necessary dispute resolution can be used, but two reverts is not necessarily blockable activity, and does not appear to be so in this instance. See WP:BRD / WP:ONUS, and discuss these changes. Aoidh (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

User:England 3-4 Germany reported by User:Gaismagorm (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Iberian Pact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: England 3-4 Germany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 12:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 06:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 15:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 13:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""
6. 06:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User consistently removing sourced information with no explanation given. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. No communication, just edit-warring to remove sourced info. Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Alalch E. reported by User:The Blue Rider (Result: No violation)

Page: Tamara (given name) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alalch E. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1

Comments:

• User removed a large amount of sourced content, I reverted, and they kept reverting me instead of seeking consensus, furthermore they start harrassing me with bad-faith templates on my talk page threatning me that I will be blocked 1, 2, 3 and 4. I already asked them multiple times to seek consensus in the talk page and instead they do personal attacks to me, such as you have been showing a weak grasp of policies such as WP:NOR and WP:V and Please get a grip. Which shows that they do not plan to seek consensus and will likely continuing edit warring. The Blue Rider 16:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

My response is at Talk:Tamara (given name)#The Blue Rider's mass revert. On the talk page, as I was editing, I was describing some of my edits. Some of the other edits of more self-explanatory nature such as adding the sources which I listed on the talk page were described in edit summaries. I was doing research, adding sources, and making incremental edits to fix what was a thoroughly broken article. During this, without engaging in a discussion, which I had already started on the talk page, and which follows up on concerns and dilemmas about content from other editors, The Blue Rider would simply revert en masse, repeatedly, all of those edits, pointlessly hindering my progress with the article, and not providing any useful feedback, critique or meaningful substantive opposition. From my perspective, The Blue Rider for whatever reason began to like the article the way it is, uncritically, and they had even nominated it for GA even though it was in a truly dismal shape, and had not even been stable, and then began to exhibit WP:OWNERSHIP behavior through wp:Status quo stonewalling—Alalch E. 16:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As further evidence of The Blue Rider's wish to impose their preferred version of the article, I cite how they falsely claimed that there was a consensus in the discussion involving their edit previously being contested Talk:Tamara (given name)#List of names removal, saying: There is a clear consensus, most people who partook in the discussion supported the split. But that was not a true statement. Soon afterwards, multiple editors made it clear to them that there had never been anything resembling such a consensus. —Alalch E. 16:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The WP:OWNERSHIP's claim is definitely not true since I have achieved consensus and agreed with multiple other editors regarding their concerns with the article that can be seen in Tamara's talk page. All I am asking is for Alalch to discuss on the talk page their large removal of sourced content so we can achieve consensus. The Blue Rider 16:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not what happened, and you seem unable to evaluate this matter objectively. After the following talk page sections: Talk:Tamara (given name)#Hindi origin and Talk:Tamara (given name)#Sanskrit origin were started by Altenmann, criticizing parts of the article which you had nominated for GA, you facetiously tried to brush off their absolutely valid concerns and made some very poor edits which you then gave up on, causing nothing but a waste of time of editors interested in improving that article. You now describe your withdrawal from such tendentious behavior as consensus on the talk page. This is why I told you to get a grip. —Alalch E. 16:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC) me

I'll point out that both editors are currently pushing up against (but perhaps not specifically violating) the 3RR, and @The Blue Rider has previously been advised by @ToBeFree, after a related edit war unblock discussion, that it'd be best to pump the brakes on participating in name articles for their own good. Obviously they haven't taken that advice.

Additionally, @Alalch E.'s large adjustments to the article have effectively short circuited what is another ongoing discussion by making such large adjustments to the article that all opposing viewpoints in that discussion have become irrelevant. RachelTensions (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. I was addressing problems with the prose independently from the question of the list, and they are inherently independent from the list inclusion question. The list thing can't hinder rectification of glaring core content policy compliance problems. —Alalch E. 17:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion concerns one specific question: whether or not the list of name-holders should be included in the article. There was consensus that it should be retained in the encyclopedia, in contrast to TheBlueRider's decision to just delete the long-standing list (introduced in Nov 2006), but there was not yet a consensus as to whether it should be a separate list or part of the name article.

Quite separately from that discussion, Alalch E. has done stalwart work to improve the quality of the information about the name, which previously mingled information about "Tamara" and about "Tamar", used some unreliable-seeming sources, etc. TBR had previously said that it was hard to find WP:RS: Alalch found RS and improved the article, step by step, with edit summaries explaining each improvement. TBR then reverted 11 well-explained edits to his previous preferred version, with edit summary "seek consensus before removing sourced content, all sentences are cited and there is no OR". Alalch understandably reverted that reversion, and there was another to-and-fro pair of reverts. PamD 22:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that Alalch did stellar work, he mainly just removed sourced content, the vast majority of the current information on the Tamara page was written by me. The Blue Rider 22:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

(Thanks for the ping; I'll let someone else handle this report though as I'd be interested in others' opinions. I didn't yet look at the conflict again so I really have none.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And please do keep talking (preferably on the talk page); this is a much more civil discussion than we usually see accompany these reports. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

User:SGHAS95 reported by User:Saqib (Result: Page protected)

Page: Chaudhry Salik Hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: SGHAS95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 18:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC) "Remove false information, lacks reliable resources"
3. 18:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC) "It's fake information, which is why I removed it from here. This is not accurate."
4. 17:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 17:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Controversies */"
6. 17:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This newbie is continuously engaging in edit warring, despite receiving warnings not to do so. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Just as a note: I beleive that the user may be using sockpuppets to delete the same information from the article, as evidenced here: [264]. --Lenny Marks (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked indefinitely. I'll take a look at that. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Page protected by Hey man im josh for three days. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have also put a CTOPS notice (ARBIPA since he's an active politician) on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

User:68.104.130.88 reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Blocked, page protected)

Page: Richard Simmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 68.104.130.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "/* In media */"
2. 00:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "These are sourced claims."
3. 00:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "More info on his birth"
4. 21:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Death */"
5. 21:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Death */"
6. 12:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"
2. 01:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• This person is evading their recent block as Phoenix IP Special:Contributions/68.106.251.16, and is behaving the same way as blocked users TrueLegend23 and MisterAnthony. Note that the IP is globally locked. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• • And he's still edit warring on this article. We really don't need to know the exact minute of his birth, or of his death, or that he fed skunks, or his house manager's opinion of how he looked after he died. Meters (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 1 month ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Ram112313 reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Jersey) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ram112313 (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. 03:01, 31 October 2024
2. 23:18, 31 October 2024
3. 14:36, 1 November 2024
4. 17:57, 2 November 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [265]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [266]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [267]

Comments: Rampant edit warring by this editor to remove content contrary to WP:JDL. He is engaging in WP:IDHT and only repeating himself with his AI-assisted responses. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Kaloyan34-FR reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: One partially blocked, one warned)

Page: List of largest empires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kaloyan34-FR (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. [268]
2. [269]
3. [270]
4. [271]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [272]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [273]

Comments:

Whilst typing this report they reverted again [[274]]. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, what is the point in [275] and [276]? Preventing an edit warrior from having the latest revision on a page in the dispute? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks from article by ToBeFree Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This is true, but the question and the report are still open. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I was undoing the edit warriors undiscussed changes. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This is true, but if I understand correctly, you have edit warred for the sole purpose of dealing with an edit war. Creating a report about it is fine, reverting once is fine, reverting three times without providing any reason other than "you are edit warring" is not. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Err, how could I create a report if I had not reverted them, would that not mean they would have in fact not breached 3RR, and thus edit warred their way to success? Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I think Special:Diff/1254746752 is fine if you agree about Taagepera1997 being a more reliable source than larousse.fr, for example. You could say so in the edit summary, and especially if you already notice a conflict, create a section on the article's talk page like this:
==Greatest extent of the Second French colonial empire==
I think International Studies Quarterly ([https://doi.org/10.1111%2F0020-8833.00053]) is a more reliable source than larousse.fr for the greatest extent of the Second French colonial empire because … ~~~~

You could then invite Kaloyan34-FR to the discussion using {{Please see|Talk:List of largest empires}} on their user talk page.

If they revert in response, WP:DISCFAIL contains further advice. I understand that edit warring can be a convenient method to escalate a situation to the point where a noticeboard report can be made, but that's not the point of the noticeboard, and you'll need to find a way to avoid edit warring yourself. I personally don't evaluate the three-revert rule and think reports about an edit war shouldn't be declined just because there have not been four reverts within 24 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

So (In essence), ignore WP:ONUS and wp:brd)? And was I not the first to revert them, that is why they breached 3RR and I did not. They had been told by another user to take it to talk, and they decided not to (as I said in breach of policy). Sorry, but this seems to be to in fact reverse policy and put the onus on those objecting to an addition to make the case for exclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, BRD is not policy and there's no policy preferring the status quo over a new revision just because it is the status quo. WP:ONUS does not apply to a dispute where a number and a reference are changed; it would apply if the dispute was about the inclusion or exclusion of verifiable information, and it would prefer a revision where the disputed content isn't present. You can invoke "ONUS" when removing something, not when replacing it by other disputed content. I'm also not saying that the other editor's behavior was policy-compliant; I wouldn't have blocked if their behavior had been acceptable. All I am saying is that if you edit war for the sole purpose of dealing with an edit war, you contribute to the issue rather than fixing it and may be blocked for the same reasons as the other user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved
One editor partially blocked, one editor warned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Revirvlkodlaku reported by User:76.65.74.178 (Result: Blocked for 60 hours)

Page: Black Box (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Revirvlkodlaku (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. [277]
2. [278]
3. [279]
4. [280]

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: [281]

Comments:
User with at least two previous blocks for edit warring and displaying some serious ownership issues with the article. It started with an unexplained revert. Then the editor started to give out some dubious reasons in his second revert such as not liking the new edit and also not wanting to engage with unregistered users. Since the litigious sentence is unsourced to begin with, I have decided to simply remove it to attempt to find a middle ground. But even that wasn't enough for the edit warrior, who performed two more reverts to restore his preferred version (and unsourced content) . And the editor in question is attempting to justify his broken of 3RR with reasons that don't even fall in the Exemptions category. The editor clearly has no desire to stop his edit war and obviously hasn't learned from his previous blocks. . 76.65.74.178 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Not the first time I've blocked this user, so that factors into the longer time. I have accounted for the 5 hours taken off the previous block as well. Issues with sourcing must be resolved on the talk page, not in edit summaries. I am also not very impressed with a) telling the user to use an edit summary nearly an hour and a half after they had done exactly that, b) telling them "when you're ready to become a registered user, we can talk", an attitude very contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, for which the IP justifiably rebuked Rev and c) claiming "protecting the page from your disruptiveness" as a reason for continued reversion when this clearly does not come under the limited exceptions enumerated at 3RRNO.

At the same time I should warn the IP they are not blameless here, even if I chose not to sanction them. Your edit summaries—accusing Rev of ownership, reminding them of their previous blocks while telling them they had broken 3RR before they actually had (something that only happened on the last edit)—could easily support an impression that you weren't ever assuming good faith here, and inevitably when that happens a battleground mentality such as we see in the edit history results. Think about that next time, registration or not. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Evafancy38 reported by User:LaffyTaffer (Result: Article protected one week)

Page: Ikwerre people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Evafancy38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"
2. 18:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"
3. 15:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"
4. 13:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"
5. 09:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining original history of Ikwerre"
6. 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"
7. 23:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"
8. 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC) "Maintaining the original history of Ikwerre"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ikwerre people."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Notification */ Reply"

Comments:

Violation of 3RR several times over. Little to no effort to use talk pages to reach consensus despite multiple warnings. Other editors are also involved in this edit war who did not appear to make good faith attempts to communicate, but Evafancy38 seems to be where the edit war started. LaffyTaffer (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think could be important to note that this is the exact same manner of editing — repeatedly attempting to reclassify identities as Igbo subgroups without any consensus or discussion — that led to the blocking of another user last week. Watercheetah99 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't noticed that there was an SPI open on this user until after I posted this report. LaffyTaffer (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Izno has extended confirmed protected the article for one week. There are a lot of new editors edit-warring with each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Thetazero reported by User:Jeraxmoira (Result: No violation)

Page: Gukesh Dommaraju (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255216250 by Jeraxmoira (talk)made my point on talk"
2. 19:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255210075 by Jeraxmoira (talk) I want to know what is the evidence for circular sourcing? Many of the media outlets sourced in the article and its talk page directly interviewed him and his parents. Nor do they ever mention relying on wikipedia."
3. 18:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "Restored an older version becuase there is no evidence of circular sourcing as mentioned"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Gukesh Dommaraju."
2. 19:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Gukesh Dommaraju."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Gukesh's Origins */ Reply"
2. 20:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Gukesh's Origins */ Reply"

Comments:

User is not very familiar with Wikipedia's policies and they reverted changes without reaching a consensus on the talk page. Around 30-40% of their edits have been reverted out of the 125 they have made so far. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that I am involved in this dispute. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

User:QuranScholarship reported by User:Ivebeenhacked (Result: 24 hours)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255430163 by Sodicadl (talk) The previous edits only stated the obvious and clear attestations in the Quran and they were referenced. You did not state what was wrong with the edits exactly. Therefore, the edits will revert to the previous version. Thank you."
2. 17:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255383415 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) According to West Coast University, original research articles, and hence original research, are is written by the person or people that conducted the experiment or observations. Hence, the research is the primary source itself. Therefore, research that relies on primary sources is not original, but, rather secondary."
3. 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255336359 by VenusFeuerFalle (talk) With all due respect, you falsely claim that I conducted original research. This is not original research, the source I am citing to is the Quran. You made a judgement that my edit is orignial research without providing any proof for your conclusion.The edit is based on the Quran. This not original research on my part. The sources were cited."
4. 22:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "I added an introductory sentence regarding the belief in the oneness of God. That is an essential tenent of the Islamic faith and one that should be related early on in the discussion of the religion Furthermore, I removed the part that said Muslims believe Prophet Mohammed to be the "main" prophet. Verses 2:285 and 3:84 in the Quran state that Muslims are not to make distinction between prophets."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC) on User talk:QuranScholarship "ONLY Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation (UV 0.1.6)"

Comments:

Violation of 3rr. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I've accidentally selected one wrong diff but if you would see the history section of Islam article, he still has violated the 3rr. Sorry for the mistake. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Apparently there was a duplication report whoops....seeing this reply to someone's inquiry about the situation would led most to believe they're not suitable for the collaborative environment of Wikipedia. Moxy🍁 01:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the support, Moxy. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Kandaris reported by User:Czello (Result: 72 hrs)

Page: 2024 United States elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255769628 by Czello (talk) I am in the UK and The Guardian uses the Tabloid format and therefore by extension is a tabloid."
2. 15:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255766148 by Czello (talk) Have removed as sources not reliable, neutral and no actual evidence, Guardian is a tabloid newspaper, Al-Jazeera is questionable notwithstanding both organisation are known to be either at best anti-Israel and at worse antisemitic."
3. 15:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255761669 by Czello (talk)"
4. 14:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Election interference */ Have removed as sources not reliable, neutral and no actual evidence."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Contentious topics alert */ new section"
2. 15:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2024 United States elections."

Comments:

Note that the user has deleted both the edit warring warning and the CTOPs alert from their user page; links are still above. User has been directed to WP:RSP in regards to the reliable sources they are deleting and asked to discuss on the talk page, but this has gone unheeded. — Czello ^(music) 16:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: the user just attempted to delete this report. — Czello ^(music) 16:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. Would you be able to undo this edit, as they reverted you a moment before being blocked. — Czello ^(music) 16:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Nathan2718 reported by User:GiantSnowman (Result: indef-blocked for edit warring and an uncollegial attitude)

Page: Riyad Mahrez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nathan2718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [282]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [283]
2. [284]
3. [285]
4. [286]
5. [287]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [288]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [289]

Comments:
This is a new SPI who is edit warring at a long-established article, refusing to engage. All I want is for the article status quo to be restored so that the issue can be resolved at the talk page. GiantSnowman 21:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Editor continue to edit war with other editors, see this after the AN3 discussion started, reverting @BrazilianDude70:. I am concerned with the editor's attitude in their edit summary, and increasingly concerned about their editing/approach here in general. GiantSnowman 22:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

NB that an editor with the same name is simultaneously making identical changes to the French-language article. GiantSnowman 22:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Nathan2718 has been indeffed by @Drmies:. GiantSnowman 22:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

User:InterComMan reported by User:Adriazeri (Result: Stale)

Page: 3 (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC) "no, they aren't subsidiaries"
2. 10:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 09:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "are not subsidiaries, but only companies that use the brand"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on 3 (company)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC) on User talk:InterComMan "/* Three? */ new section"

Comments:

The user has a history of baiting people into edit wars and then playing the victim, was warned for it then (linked to the ANI discussion on their talk page). Has done it in this case with me and another user, was warned for it by both of us, and has not paid any notice. Adriazeri (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Declined Stale, and even if this had been considered promptly there's no 3RR violation. I am also not inclined to look favorably on users who allege the reported user "baited" them into edit warring. We do not recognize this as a defense. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:601:C82:2F10:74EC:8C48:FF7A:75EA reported by User:Czello (Result: No violation)

Page: Wig (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:601:C82:2F10:74EC:8C48:FF7A:75EA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Please don’t revert; they changed their name"
2. 12:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Please don’t revert; they changed their name"
3. 12:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Please don’t revert; they changed their name"
4. 12:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wig (song)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)