Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive466

User:Leechjoel9 reported by User:Batreeq (Result: Stale)

Page: Asmara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leechjoel9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]
9. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: long-term over 1.5 years (see above)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments:

• User has admitted to edit warring (e.g. here). User also has a history of edit warring and is non-compliant and non-willing to discuss this further on the talk page, instead repeatedly reverting. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Batreeq: This report is an abuse of process. The last edit made by Leechjoel9 to the article was on February 11, the one before that on September 26, 2022. You are listing diffs above from 2021.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: And if they keep reverting my edit, but wait >24 h to circumvent 3RR, what then? – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Batreeq has been a persistent edit warring the Asmara article, adding Arabic as official name of the city over 10 times. The user has been ANI reported last year for adding same thing [13] without reaching consensus, see talk page of the article [14]. Still user has been persistent one topic warring the article, less than 24 hours ago [15]. Leechjoel9. (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC).

User:Tinabigfan87 reported by User:Magnolia677 (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Natick Mall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tinabigfan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20] - new account.
5. [21] - new account.
6. [22] - new account.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

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

Comments:

Magnolia677 (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Dovidroth reported by User:Meteoritekid (Result:Declined )

Page: 1948 Arab–Israeli War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dovidroth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]

Second Page: 1948 Palestine war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33] and [34]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]

Comments:

Two pages, 1948 Arab–Israeli War and 1948 Palestine war overlap significantly. When I first came across them about a month ago, the "Historiography" sections of each article were ~identical and showed problematic bias.[36]

I attempted to improve those sections. Dovidroth made several reversions and other edits to the above two pages with no justification, while demanding that I "justify" my edits. What is valid "justification," according to Dovidroth? Good question. Another user questioned Dovidroth's reverts in the talk page a month ago and they haven't replied.[37] They keep reverting the page, though.

Notable issues:

...in the West the majority view was of a tiny group of vastly outnumbered and ill-equipped Jews fighting off the massed strength of the invading Arab armies...[38]

The article itself contains well-cited figures for military strength that conflict with that claim. Refer to the conflict summary / side-bar on the right: Israeli forces outnumbered Arab forces almost 2:1.

Additionally:

...it was also widely believed that the Palestinian Arabs left their homes on the instruction of their leaders.[39]

It is problematic to state that the Palestinian diaspora was ordered by Palestinian leaders. That is a Zionist political argument, not the 'prevailing Western historiographical view,' as the article currently states.

The above two statements should be included in the article as Israeli historiographical views, but they should not be presented as "Western" or consensus views, and other views should not be immediately reverted / removed.

The Historiography section from one of the two articles, [40], has since been improved by other users, creating a much more even-handed article. However, the second page, [41], remains strongly biased. Any attempt at introducing impartiality is immediately reverted by Dovidroth.

I apologize in advance for any formatting errors here or errors in this form; I don't usually add more than text / citations to articles. I looked this page up after Dovidroth posted a threat on my talk page and I realized that this all probably does fit the description of an 'edit war.' Meteoritekid (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This is clear projection. The editor who broke 1RR by reverting twice in less than 24 hours (here and here) is accusing me of edit-warring! Also, he didn't understand the concept of WP:ONUS by removing an entire section that has existed for years before gaining consensus for such a drastic change. I think this deserves a WP:BOOMERANG. Dovidroth (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

1) Your unjustified edits and reversions amount to an edit war in this case.

2) I did not realize that returning an edit far older than 24 hours was viewed as a reversion, and I undid it of my own accord as soon as I was informed of the problem. I then came here to address the issue.

3) You were apparently cited for violating the 1RR rule just over a month ago and did *not* undo it.[42] It appears that that event would also be accurately described as an edit war.

You were also cited for inappropriately canvassing on other pages related to Israel and Palestine earlier that month.[43] Meteoritekid (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Declined We are getting beyond what ANEW can handle here, and as to the report, one of the alleged reverts is from February, and one is from this month. If you want to build a case for action on misconduct in Israel/Palestine generally, WP:AE is the right venue. No opinion on that is being expressed by me, but for the purpose of ANEW, I'm not blocking anyone based on this report. Meteoritekid you did violate the 1RR, but you also did revert yourself, so, again, as a ANEW matter, I decline to block. Courcelles (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Lceman reported by User:CastJared (Result:Protected )

Page: Los pacientes del doctor García (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lceman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]
5. [49]
6. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [52]

Comments:

• This person keeps reverting it using Spanish text, and because this article should follow English only.

• I will admit to some guilt in this edit war as I was attempting to revert the vandalism of replacing a valid English article with non-English. I do not believe that Lceman is able to communicate in English, so they may not be able to fully participate in this process. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Page protected My Spanish skills are AWFUL, but blocking would be really BITEy, so I've tried to translate my comments into Spanish both on the user's talk page and the protection log using Google. Maybe we can find someone that actually speaks the language to communicate? For now, ECP to stop the article from being translated as a "hack", because I really don't want to use the block button. Courcelles (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Grand Cohen, User:Kurcyusz reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Both blocked indef as NOTHERE)

Page: Holocaust studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grand Cohen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Kurcyusz (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. [53]
2. [54]
3. See all 14 rv's in article history [55]

 // Timothy :: talk  15:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of indefinitely as single-purpose edit warriors. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Vrhunski reported by User:Santasa99 (Result: Partially blocked)

Page: Srebrenica massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vrhunski (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. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]; [62]; [63]

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

Comments:
Editor edit-war on highly sensitive article and topic, in scope under WP:ARBEE, with complete disregard of WP:consensus requirement and uses edit-summary to give simple justifications of his rv's like, "explained thoroughly on talk (...)", "I'll assume your message on my tal1k page was meant as a joke (...)". He was informed by me and by User:Pincrete that his POV needs both RS and consensus, that mere expression and explanation of his POV and opinions is not enough, especially on such a sensitive topic under ARB enforcement provisions for Balkans and East Europe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Partially blocked from the page and given their first CTOP notification. Courcelles (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Truffle2022 reported by User:Czello (Result:Partial, 24 hours )

Page: Reform UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Truffle2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 12:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 11:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 09:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Reform UK."

Comments:

WP:IDWAR behaviour. First edit was outside of the 24-hour window, so 3RR has not technically been broken. However the user is engaging in ideological edit warring despite several warnings and attempts to communicate on their talk page. I do not believe they have any intention of stopping. — Czello 12:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Waivered between this and a straight indef, but... meh, let's try the lighter approach? Courcelles (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User:201.182.251.142 reported by User:CastJared (Result: Declined)

Pages: Wikipedia:Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Draft:Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 201.182.251.142 (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]
5. [70]
6. [71]
7. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [74]

Comments:

• This user keeps vandalizing and warring over these 2 related articles.
• Declined CastJared, please find something more productive to do than joining an edit war in a sandbox and reporting others for participating. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User:SLBedit reported by User:Sol505000 (Result: let's hope this will be settled amicably)

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

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]

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: [78]

Comments:

The user ignores Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Other languages. IPA transcriptions of Portuguese which use the IPA-pt template must agree with the Help:IPA/Portuguese guide. They also don't seem to understand that the ⟨l⟩ symbol used in the context of European Portuguese means [ɫ]. Portuguese, like any other language, is not spoken with cardinal consonants nor vowels. Their actions strongly suggest that the 3RR rule is going to be broken so I may as well report it now. Sol505000 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't ignore anything. I added a reliable source showing that IPA for "Silva" is ˈsiɫvɐ, not ˈsilvɐ, while you ignored the reliable source I added. Now you make this WP:FUTURE report, so I don't revert your edit and you "win". Laughable. ˈsiɫvɐ has been in the article for years, and now you change it without discussing it first in the article's talk page? You are the one edit warring: [79] [80] [81] SLBedit (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You should probably read User:Nardog#Misconceptions. IPA for "Silva" is [ˈsiɫvɐ], not [ˈsilvɐ] tells me that you don't know much about this alphabet. Sol505000 (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Sol505000, I appreciate you re-reverting yourself; this means I won't have to think about which version to protect or restore, so I'm not going to do either one. I also think you opened this too soon. I am sure that I am not the only admin who would be hesitant about throwing around blocks for one or the other of two experienced editors. I will say that the Wikipedia user page you pointed at is of course not a reliable source, and isn't particularly helpful here; I'll also say that, SLBedit, infopedia.pt is also not a reliable source. Y'all really need to discuss this on the talk page, and I hope that you all will do that. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: Please don't use results like "let's hope this will be settled amicably". It ruins the reputation of this board and possibly all administrative noticeboards. Thank you for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23, I'm just trying to appease lost souls like AttackTheMoonNow... Drmies (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Eusébio but after all of this I don't have high hopes. Sol505000 (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"infopedia.pt is also not a reliable source". How so? It's not user-generated, it's a dictionary by Porto Editora. SLBedit (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

SLBedit, thank you for the correction. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Old houses reported by User:Ɱ (Result: Blocked)

Pages:
List of the oldest buildings in Connecticut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Buckingham House (Milford, Connecticut) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Old houses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: complex, see below

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. link. This has been going on at the 'oldest buildings' article since seemingly 2018, 5 years of sparring edits.
2. link for Buckingham House reversions.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, link

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

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

Comments:

I warned the user repeatedly about edit warring and 3RR, as they had reverted three times within 24 hours by that point. Their response was "I'll wait 24 hours, no problem, but I'm justifiably editing and citing properly". ɱ (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring on various pages including List of the oldest buildings in Connecticut. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

User:たたたたたたたたったポンタ reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Blocked from the three articles for a week)

Page: Battle of Noryang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Battle of Noryang

[83] - «Where is my edit against MOS? Now Qinshufang has made a clear swearing at me.»
[84] - «No edit summary»
[85] - «No edit summary»
[86] - «No edit summary»
[87] - «If you have any objections, please state your opinion in discuss page.»
[88] - «No edit summary»

• Battle of Busan (1592)

[89] - «It's "Disputed" when consensus is not reached despite using mutually reliable sources. Also, wikipedia is not a place to verify historical facts, so there is no need to refute your personal research.»
[90] - «No edit summary»
[91] - «Expressions such as "Japanese internet rightists" are unsourced, non-neutral, and discriminatory. If you think there is a problem with this edit, please explain the problem in the talk before reverting.»
[92] - «No edit summary»
[93] - «Please join discussion»
[94] - «No edit summary»
[95] - «The goal of the Korean navy in this battle was to occupy Busan, but the Korean navy failed to do so and withdrew. This is a strategic defeat.»
[96] - «No edit summary»

• Battle of Myeongnyang

[97] - «There is no rule that a non-Japanese source must be used to indicate that something is "Disputed". If the sources disagree about winning or losing this battle, it's "Disputed." It is not neutral to describe it as a one-sided victory.»
[98] - «It is not neutral to describe only “Joseon victory” when, in fact, there are reliable sources that this battle was a Japanese strategic victory.»
[99] - «All issues raised have been resolved. If you still claim there is a problem, please explain on the talk page before reverting.»
[100] - «Sorry, I pasted the wrong source.»
[101] - «No edit summary»
[102] - «No edit summary»
[103] - «No edit summary»
[104] - «The Korean Navy succeeded in inflicting damage on the Japanese Navy, but its retreat resulted in a strategic defeat.»
[105] - «No edit summary»

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106], [107], [108],

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109], [110], [[111]]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [112]

Comments:
Tendentious edit warrior making repeated reverts to push military conflict infobox results on multiple pages related to a Japan-Korea war. WP:IDHT in talk page discussion. Stopped responding and decided by themself that all issues have been resolved. Qiushufang (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't decide for myself that all the problems were solved. The neutrality issues, MOS issues, and source issues raised on the talk page are not present in my last edit (although not for the previous ones). Rather, it seems to me that you do not even acknowledge the existence of claims that Japan won the Battle of Busan and the Battle of Myeongnyang. I took your claim seriously and tried to resolve the issues raised by writing "Disputed", but you ignored the words I wrote in the editorial summary and reverted. The editorial summary of the Battle of Noryang clearly insulted me. You've said many times that you need a consensus. Isn't that only because of you don't agree with my edit? It seems to me that you have abandoned the argument when you only base Revert on "consensus". たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@たたたたたたたたったポンタ I see on the article's talk page that Qiushufang has raised legitimate concerns about your edit that you have not rebutted. Your next actions should be to provide the sources requested or request a third opinion to get more voices in the discussion, not to edit war the material back in. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@たたたたたたたたったポンタ I've reverted your edits on Dynasty, it's clearly something hoaxes or disruptive edits. Please cite reference when you add something to article. -Lemonaka‎ 15:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week from all three articles, to encourage greater use of the talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

User:The Anonymous Earthling reported by User:Haoreima (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Dzüko Valley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Anonymous Earthling (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: I will be honest. I assume reverting vandalism more than three times is not the violation of 3RR. I am providing both his as well as my edit diff, with proper honest explanations.

1. 1, 2, 3 - first time revert by him (unexplained, undiscussed, re adding unsourced contents and contents backed by unreliable sources, & removing contents backed by multiple reliable sources)
2. 1, 2 - my edit of reverting him because of unexplained and undiscussed
3. 1, 2 - his edit repeating again the unexplained and undiscussed revert (at this time, he is already warned in his talk page as well as pinged in the article's talk page)
4. 1 - my edit reverting his unexplained and undiscussed revert
5. 1 - he again reverted my edit, still unexplained and undiscussed, still not responding to the talk pages
6. 1 - me reverting his vandalism (repeated unexplained and undiscussed revert is obviously vandalism)
7. 1 - again he's repeating
8. 2 - again and again
9. 1 - my final edit requesting him to stop but I am reverted, so, I stopped myself

Besides, I have been recommended by another editor to go in this admin noticeboard, when I complained about him in the WP:VIP at here Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

1. Here - I pinged him to talk first before reverting but no response
2. I warned him first time - no response
3. I warned him second time - no response
4. I warned him last time - final warning - no response

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

1. here, I told him

Comments:

• Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Anonymous Earthling/Archive too for the past behaviours.
  • Fixed page link (typographical issue), behavior as yet unevaluated. Courcelles (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• This user has lots of warnings and evidences from other editors in the past for his behaviour of reverting improperly like here, here, here, etc. Additionally, he is been remarked frequently for copyright infringement issues multiple times by multiple editors like here, here, here, here, here. He's also remarked for unsourced contents addition like here, here, here. He's remarked for promotional behaviour like here.

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ordinarily I might just have blocked them from the page. But ... since the reverting here was so determined and stubborn, and the edit warring was in part over the sort of thing covered in ARBIPA, I felt a sitewide block was called for.

This is one of those situations where I would have liked the ability to set up a longer partial block for after the sitewide block applies, and should this user disrupt the article again this way I would certainly endorse a long partial block from it.

I have also put the CTOPS notice on the talk page, and I will be logging this as well. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Theriddler1234 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Umayyad Caliphate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Theriddler1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Illiterates. Undid revision 1146397209 by Al Ameer son (talk)"
2. 06:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Yusuf ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Fihri was the Umayyad governor of not only Al-Andalus but also Septimania, and he was succeeded by Abd Al-Rahman I and never by the Abbasids. The Umayyads were never toppled by the Abbasids in Al-Andalus and Septimania. NEVER. Already mentioned this in the talk page. Undid revision 1146328282 by R Prazeres (talk)"
3. 05:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "See talk page. The dynasty did hold on to power uninterrupted in Al-Andalus through the end of the Abbasid revolution in 750, as the predecessor to Abd Al-Rahman I (the first emir of Córdoba) was Yusuf ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Fihri (the UMAYYAD governor of Al-Andalus). So the Umayyads never lost control of Al-Andalus after the Abbasid revolution. Undid revision 1146326124 by R Prazeres (talk)"
4. 00:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "My point is that it’s not true to say the dynasty was toppled. The Umayyads were never toppled in Al-Andalus. So it’s better to say MOST of the dynasty was toppled."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "/* March 2023 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Lead summary of Umayyads in al-Andalus */ new section"

Comments:

Edit-warring over wording in the lead, insisting on their own WP:OR interpretation of an issue. Attempted to address the problem at the talk page, with sources (see Talk:Umayyad Caliphate/Archive 1#Lead summary of Umayyads in al-Andalus). They were very clearly warned about edit-warring there ([113], [114], [115]) and on their user talk page. Their last edit summary, "illiterates", suggests they have little intention of continuing a constructive discussion. R Prazeres (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

User:199.188.117.49 reported by User:Iseult (Result: Blocked, 36 hours)

Page: Roger Benitez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 199.188.117.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [117]
2. [118]
3. [119]
4. [120]
5. [121]
6. [122]
7. [123] (after ANEW notification)

Note none of the reverts have an edit summary; this user has made no attempt at communication. Pretty clear agenda-pushing at the point Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 18:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125],

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [126]

Comments:
New revert after effort to resolve on talk and ANEW notice here.

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Muqale reported by User:Goddard2000 (Result: No violation)

Page: Orstkhoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muqale (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. [127]
2. [128]
3. [129]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [131]

Comments:
I would like to point out that the first Diff isn't directed towards the user but i used that diff to show that this edit is what started it all. He put the Ingush section above the Chechen section based on chronology (i.e the first nation the earliest source connects to is represented first in the article). Me, this editor and Muqale talked in the talk page for days and even contacted an admin. We agreed on the rules of "Earliest source that connects either nation to the tribe Orstkhoy = that nations section is first in the article". I found the earliest source from 1771, i posted the source and the map and as per the rules i put the Chechen section back up (where it was originally). Then Muqale decided to delete the map, delete the source, delete my other edits and tried to discredit my sources in the talk page despite me already posting and explaining them. I would like for an admin to get involved so we could solve this and stop Muqale from edit warring. Now this user is mocking my source by distorting its text in the article and removing the map entirely. Please read the last section of the talk page to understand the context, the "On the topic of oldest source" section. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe I may reply in my defense, since I am tagged. User:Goddard2000 has altered a whole section while a dispute was ongoing in the talk page of mentioned article. He even admitted first that the sources were valid as menioned by the admin he himself tagged in the discussion: see here.--Muqale (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Moving up the section that has the oldest source was an already established rule, just ctrl + f the talk page and search "Chronologically", the sections changed based on chronology without the consensus of others. You and the other Wikieditor agreed on this, you had no issues with Wikieditor moving the Ingush section above the Chechen section due to "chronology" since you clearly said "instead of a chronological order of the sources which makes more sense," (just ctrl + f this sentence in the talk page). When i objected and said it should be alphabetically or at the very least should stay in its original form you yet again disagreed and used the Chronology argument. So i did research and found the earliest source that supported the "Chechen section" which automatically makes the Chechen section Chronologically first and should be moved up. I did this while adding the 18th century sources to the Chechen section and keeping other 18th century sources (as they were) in the Ingush section. What did you do in response? you deleted the map i uploaded, you deleted my text and maliciously distorted it to the point where it said something completely different from the original source.

I don't understand your Diff where i said a source was valid, what is your argument here? i didn't change that source or text or said that it was false, show me one diff where i removed that Gottlieb source or distorted other sources. In fact you have kept all of my edits yet distorted 2. You also have a tendency to take back on your words, you included the text from Shteder's source where he says "Karabulaks and Chechens became enemies" AFTER telling me in talk pages that we should not mention these political differences because it does not contribute to the article, here is your exact quote "Even Städer said that Karabulaks and Chechens became enemies. Best to leave aside politics for this one, since it does not contribute to the article". Well? why did you go back on your word? was it because i dared to write that Shteder said Chechens and the Karabulaks have one origin?

We clearly need an unbiased admin here to look into this. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I've not deleted any of your sources, except for the map where the the actual Karabulaks or Orstkhoy or not even designated on. You should provide a map that actually shows them. Also, you changed the section of the Ingush origins, whilst there was a dispute ongoing, meaning no consensus was reached. The phrases you added were selective, so I expanded them with was was actually in the sourced material because you choose to ignore parts of the books like Guldenstäds which is in fact the earliest (1770) since he himself literally states he was present when the the treaty of these Ingush villages to join Russia took place in 1770. See talk page for more. Please refrain from accusing me of malicious editing only because you disagree and want the article to look a certain way. Muqale (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The map you deleted had a source which described the people and rivers inhabiting in that land. I already explained this in the talk page while using the source. I did not change the Ingush section, i moved the Chechen section above the Ingush section due to the already agreed upon chronology rule. In fact the only thing i changed in the Ingush section was removing the texts that included Chechen and moved them to the Chechen section. Before that i moved a text of Reineggs that did not include Chechens but Ingush to the Ingush section, Wikieditor disagreed with this move since the text did not argue for Ingush-Orstkhoy relations so i let that be. Muqale, explain to me how Guildenstedt source is from 1770 when he on page 242 mentions an event in 1773 2 pages after he talks about a 1770 event. Explain this to me in the talk page, we can continue there, it is no use in writing here anymore. Let the admins read this. Goddard2000 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2023 (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. Since you only offered us three reverts and then immediately said the first one didn't count, there's nothing for us to consider (and the article history doesn't make this any clearer). If there's any actionable conduct here, it might be better suited to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

User:173.71.213.235 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Isaiah 53 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 173.71.213.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]
2. [133]
3. 19:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "who died and made you boss of what gets placed here. My edit is sound, verifiable, and there is NO decisive evidence for a late date of these chapter!"
4. 19:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "stop undoing a legitimate edit that provides a more neutural POV"
5. 19:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Without a reference this should be stated more accurately and less decisively. An exilic date is a matter of scholarly OPINION, not fact!"
6. 18:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "The prior statement lacked a reference and stated as fact what is simply an opinion of some scholars. There is no indisputable evidence that any part of Isaiah was written after the prophets lifetime, and therefore any such claim should be stated tentatively and/or a reference should be provided."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Isaiah 53."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Indisputable evidence"
2. 19:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Indisputable evidence */ WP:PROFRINGE"
3. 19:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Indisputable evidence */ proof is for math and whisky"

Comments:

The IP is also known as Pastorfish. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours (that is, both the account and the IP address). ~Anachronist (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

User:OlaLj reported by User:ScienceFlyer (Result: First 24h, then indefinitely)

Page: Infectious Diseases Society of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Lyme disease treatment guidelines */"
2. 18:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Lyme disease treatment guidelines */"
3. 18:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Lyme disease treatment guidelines */"
4. 23:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Infectious Diseases Society of America."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Fringe edits */ new section"
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC) to 23:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC) on Talk:Infectious Diseases Society of America

Comments:

4th revert just outside 24 hours but this user has been reverting over and over since the 21st. An IP user 213.89.130.79 introduced baseless WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories with no reliable sources on March 21. Less than an hour later, this WP:SPA was created and has been continually reverting any attempt to remove them. I discussed why the references weren't suitable on the talk page and warned the user. Some of the edits and reverts this user made were inappropriately marked as "minor".

It doesn't look like this page is being watched by anyone else. I did report to two other noticeboards but it didn't help. Let me know if this report can be improved since it's my first edit war report after editing for over 5 years. ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @ScienceFlyer: IP has already been blocked, but in the future please note you must give a warning specifically for edit warring. The only warning given in this instance was for vandalism before they were informed of this discussion. Heavy Water (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean the named user, not the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Not to step on @Drmies:'s toes but I've NOTHERE'ed for clearly misrepresenting sources and agenda-pushing. Courcelles (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Courcelles, no toes were stepped on--and seeing what they posted after I blocked them, such a block is perfectly alright with me, and to be honest, it's the kind of response from them that I expected, with the inevitable result. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

User:216.246.154.38 and User:2604:ca00:17a:3bd1::e61:c7e1 reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Semi-protection for six months)

Page: Maia arson crimew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 216.246.154.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2604:ca00:17a:3bd1::e61:c7e1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "Grammar corrections to capitalise name, it seems someone is actively trying to sabotage the page."
2. 03:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "Grammar correction, names are capitalised. Capitalisation of a name is not chosen."
3. 03:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "grammar correction, name capitalisation"
4. 03:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "Grammar correction: name capitalisation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Maia arson crimew."
2. 03:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Maia arson crimew."
3. 03:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Maia arson crimew."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 04:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Capitalisation of maia's name */ new section"

Comments:

Initial reverts were by the IPv4, I'm reasonably confident that the IPv6 revert is the same editor. While there's been no 3RR violation, the IP editor is edit warring. On the specifics of the article, per her old Twitter account maia's name is spelt without capitalisation, and is reflected by many sources (in whole or in part) that discuss her. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Page protected for six months as it comes under the GENSEX contentious topic and while this vandalism isn't directly about that, some of the past vandalism has included pronoun changes. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Ffaffff reported by User:Mujinga (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: 20:47, 24 March 2023

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:00, 25 March 2023 - lead
2. 15:40, 25 March 2023 - other
3. 15:38, 25 March 2023‎ - lead
4. 15:37, 25 March 2023‎ - lead
5. 14:58, 25 March 2023 - lead
6. 21:10, 24 March 2023 - lead

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [135]

Comments:
Hi I am trying to copyedit/update the article on Alfredo Cospito and I have a disruptive editor making this unnecessarily difficult today. I have already warned them several times on their talkpage January, February and tried lots of times on the article talkpage to communicate but they don't seem to understand. Almost of of their recent edits are to this specific page, and tend to be ungrammatical and/or disruptive. Thanks for any help.Mujinga (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I would ask Admins to take a close look to the offending edits, to the page itself, and to the talk page.

• example: here I engage with Mujinga, ask for clarifications, revert a grammar mistake I introduced in the text.
• another example: here I engage (with another user) following WP:BRD. The user added a section, I reverted it, we engaged in talk page, we found consensus. Sadly sometimes Mujinga engages in WP:BRR, see as an example this re-revert.
• some edits that Mujinga consider offensive are not strictly reverts, e.g. [136] introduces context on the first sentence of the article. I was trying to write that in the talk page of the article but Mujinga immediately opened this notice here, hence here I am explaining myself.

I would consider carefully warnings on my talkpage too: as an example the February one refers to a possible COPYVIO, remarkably a six-word copyvio according to Mujinga. If not vexatious, I am sure you all agree this is irrelevant to this discussion. (the other warning? About sub-par English.)

But yes, above all please check the [Talk:Alfredo_Cospito], where I believe I always engaged in good faith, highlighting my concerns about WP:RECENTISM, looking constructively for dispute resolutions (e.g.: WP:3O), even when I was met with abuse (not by Mujinga, just to highlight I always try to contribute positively) and lack of good-faith accusations.

Biographies and current events are always touchy subjects, I don't believe Mujinga is acting in bad faith, and I am neither. The article would be greatly improved by more editor engaging.

One last thing, keep in mind this timeframe:

• revert request by Mujinga in the article: 16:00;
• notice of this discussion on my talk page: 16:32.

So even if you agree with what Mujinga says: I was given 32 minutes to self-revert, a very short timespan. Ffaffff (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

One last (for real) thing: some of the reported edits are consecutive (e.g. this), so they should count as one. Ffaffff (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for keeping adding material, I am not super comfortable examining history. this edit (reported in OP as edit warring) I corrected myself before the Edit War discussion was opened. Ffaffff (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed that is what 3RR says: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2023 (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 count about three reverts in the last 24 hours. So the rule has not been violated yet. If this continues the way it has been, the matter should be revisited.

However, it's clear from the talk page that Ffafff has long alienated just about every other editor working on it regularly. There is no good faith left, and that is very concerning. Mujinga, I salute you for bringing in 3O, but I think you need dispute resolution that will bring in more people than that process does. Maybe DRN or an appropriate noticeboard. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Literally why? If someone knows how to skirt the rules just well enough to do so it should not mean they get a free pass..... This is kafka-esque absurdity. Surely you know this, right? SP00KYtalk 03:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

User:2605:AD80:0:186F:1C29:70:98D6:BF80 reported by User:TaivoLinguist (Result:range-blocked for 3 years)

Page: Proto-Greek language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:AD80:0:186F:1C29:70:98D6:BF80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [137]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [138]
2. [139]
3. [140]
4. [141]
5. [142]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [145]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 3 years, range-blocked: This is a banned user whose 1-year block just expired.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Hawkers994 reported by User:MathAfrique (Result: Both partially blocked for 2 weeks)

Page: 2023 Las Anod conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hawkers994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1146634585

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1146213497
2. Special:Diff/1146427054 + Special:Diff/1146428601
3. Special:Diff/1146634585

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1146482395 — see ping & concluding sentence: We need to follow WP:EDITWAR 3RR rule...

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1146482395

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1146722428

Comments:
I attempted to de-escalate on talkpage article as of 2nd revert 🗿.

— MathAfrique (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

3rr states “ An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.” Apart from adding sources and formatting 2 lines to correct page setting [146] this whole report is irrelevant. Hawkers994 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding messages on the talk page and then reverting again is not a form of de-escalation. As you both are clearly aware of the edit warring policy and this has now ended up on a noticeboard, I'll partially block for two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks, from editing this article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Sharmavikas2k reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Adobe Photoshop Elements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sharmavikas2k (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. [147]
2. [148]
3. [149]
4. [150]
5. [151]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Sharmavikas2k and [152]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [153]

Comments:
Began using this account after having edited the page and taken part in the discussion as an ip. The comments on my talk page mirror the comments of the ip who took part in the AfD, as well as the ip who reverted the first redirect. COI/UPE editor, who on my talk page admitted to being an employee of Adobe.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

One5969 is continuously redirecting page with no valid reason. Request Admins to resolve the conflict.

Requesting admins to have this discussion around relevance of the page once again and do invite me for the discussion.

Feel free to contact me for any official information related to Adobe Photoshop Elements. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want admins to do: WP:Articles for deletion/Adobe Photoshop Elements closed as a merge six months ago. The Adobe Photoshop Elements title should exist as a redirect only, barring consensus from the community to split the article (back) off as stand-alone. The only appropriate administrative action would be to protect the title in redirect form. —C.Fred (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I was even on Wikipedia 6 months ago. I joined just because this was brought to my notice by users of Adobe Photoshop Elements. Decision of merging Adobe Photoshop Elements and Adobe Photoshop is not correct as these are two different products designed for different type of users and are sold differently.

If there is a possibility of having AFD discussion once again, please let`s have it so that wrong information is not given to the users. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

There is not. Your best option would be discussion at Talk:Adobe Photoshop to see if there is consensus to split the article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping. @Liz: This regards an AfD you closed in September. —C.Fred (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that's a good idea, given the history of the page and the AfD:

• Page protected indefinitely in light of AfD closure. —C.Fred (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  that's generous. Hopefully @Sharmavikas2k can now avoid the WP:OWN behavior that was heading toward a block. Star Mississippi 17:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Aleenf1 reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: No violation)

Page: 2022 Asian Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Aleenf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1146407892 by WikiEdits2003 (talk) MOS:ICONS / MOS:TOOMANY, do not argue with MOS"
2. 16:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1146392100 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) WP:ICONS, MOS:TOOMANY, same to many MSE, but doesn't mean it obey MOS"
3. 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1146383198 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) WP:ICONS, MOS:TOOMANY"
4. 14:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "rv, redundant"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2022 Asian Games."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has a past history of edit warring and has reverted four times (and two editors) without discussing their edits and claiming they are right. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be mirror yourself too. --Aleenf1 02:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The last edit appears to be "gaming the system" Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It you said I'm gaming the system, so it will better you say you are not discuss anything from, even that's MOS, rather than just claims it was disruptive or 3RR. --Aleenf1 02:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Reporter also failed to discuss why the failure to obey the WP:ICONS, despite being raised on personal talk page. --Aleenf1 01:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable." Clearly reporter also unable to discuss while the clear MOS is there. --Aleenf1 01:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

So are the reporter also gaming the disruptive or 3RR system without needed to discuss, with the MOS available? --Aleenf1 02:30, 26 March 2023 (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. This died down two days ago. I am further moved towards inaction by the big yawning blank space above underneath: "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page", where, indeed, one finds that no one has made any edits since last August. Please, before renewing this dispute, go there and hash out amongst yourselves what would be the right amount of icons. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Yeah!210 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: I Should Have Known Better (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yeah!210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [154]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [155]
2. [156]
3. [157]
4. [158]
5. [159]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160]

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

Comments:
Sundayclose (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Bzzzing and User:JayBeeEll reported by User:128.164.177.55 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
Bzzzing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Roughly this version: [162]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [163]
2. [164]
3. [165]
4. [166]
5. [167]
6. [168]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [169]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [170]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [171]

Comments:

One user (Bzzzing) has repeatedly reverted while ignoring the substantive objections to their edits, including a revert after being warned. The other has also been reverting repeatedly but has at least made substantive comments (in edit summaries and on the talk-page). --128.164.177.55 (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I was the one who first attempted to have a dialogue with User:JayBeeEll. There are no "substantive" comments or reasons given by User:JayBeeEll for their constant reversions. On the talk page of the said article here: [172], I tried to ask User:JayBeeEll for their reasons for reverting, and tried to reach some compromise. I was the first to reach out. Their answers were vague, confrontational, and dismissive. Throughout this entire process, I've tried to find some reason for their reverts. None were given. I would appreciate some insight from outside parties. Thank you. Bzzzing (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Bzzzing and JayBeeEll, you are both warned that any more reverts (in the broadest sense) to the article may trigger a block for edit-warring without further notice. I suggest that neither of you edit the article for any reason, although you are welcome to discuss the dispute on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  There is a warning on my talk page... and that happened yesterday, after everything. I don't think either of us edited or reverted after that. I know I didn't. Bzzzing (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's unambiguously false: you reverted almost two hours after being warned (see the diffs included above). --128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Cambial_Yellowing reported by User:Softlemonades (Result: Declined; should be at AE)

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

Previous version reverted to: [173]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:05, 27 March 2023 [174] not how article subject is defined in the preponderance of RS
2. 18:15, 27 March 2023 [175] Reverted 1 edit by Softlemonades: Unsupported characterisation of living person.

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: Affirmative Conensus warning [176] edit warring [177] [178] see comments

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Long discussion at Talk:Julian_Assange#Is_a_hacker_in_lead [179] [180]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [181]

Comments:

• Page has 1RR and Consensus Required restrictrions
• Cambial Yellowing has a history of edit warring on the related page WikiLeaks and was temporary edit blocked on it WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive463#User:Cambial_Yellowing_reported_by_User:VQuakr_(Result:_1-month_partial_block)

• The Unsupported characterisation of living person. comment for the second revert doesnt make sense. I used Rollback to restore it to before my edit that Cambial Yellowing objected to so there could be more discussion, because Cambial Yellows edit restored things that other editors objected to.

• Cambial Yellowing denied violating the 1RR and Consensus Required restriction, saying the charge is simply made up [182] and accusing me of breaking 1RR for reverting an IP editor who was violating 1RR and several other editors reverted 22 hours before the Rollback. Denying it is why I think its going to continue

• This isnt about the content. The edit I restored with Rollback wasnt my preferred version. I think it should be what Cambial Yellow edited it to, but another editor has a problem with the wording and Ive been trying to find something theyll accept like [183] [184]

Softlemonades (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The longstanding behavioural problems with user Softlemonades on this page and closely related topics could fill many pages. The Assange page has both 1rr and Consensus Required restrictions, of which Softlemonades is aware. The latter sanction in particular initially had the effect of greatly reducing the disruption and massive size of the article talk page. Had done so - until Softlemonades decided to simply ignore it. Some earlier clear examples:

1. [185] violates "Consensus Required"; adds new material to the page a second time that had been challenged without gaining consensus
2. [186] violates "Consensus Required" and 1RR, re-adding the same material
3. [187] violates "Consensus Required" and 1RR, re-adding different material without discussion and without establishing consensus
4. [188] reverts and then
5. [189] violates 1RR four minutes later

What's a little surprising in this instance is that they would bring here two ostensibly improper diffs by another editor. The first of my two recent edits to the page is not a revert. Yet in the edit immediately between those two edits Softlemonades breaches 1rr yet again, making an unfounded accusation of edit warring while doing so:

1. [190]
2. [191]

Their edit warring has been a problem at other pages:

1. [192]
2. [193]
3. [194]
4. [195]
5. [196]
6. [197]

and within the next four hours after that

1. [198]
2. [199]
3. [200]

It's long past time that administrator action with Softlemonades is needed to effect a change in their problematic behaviour, ready breaches of sanctions, and unwillingness to collaborate in a collegiate way. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

diffs 41 and 42 were separate reverts of separate additions by the same editor. I reverted them separately so I could respond in the edit summaries. Thats not edit warring

Their edit warring has been a problem at other pages: and within the next four hours after that Cambial seems to be referring to edits related to the edit war report that I linked to resulted in them being blocked from the page. I didnt file that report

unwillingness to collaborate in a collegiate way Unlike Cambial I participated in long discussions on the Talk page and have tried to find something acceptable to everyone. Cambial didnt join the latest discussion until after being named and reverting twice, restoring text that a third editor objects to.

The claim that 2] is not a revert. doesnt pass the recent history check. The effect of it was a revert, most importantly it reverted the text that was being contested and that was highlighteed in the edit summary

Cambial complained about me before and has nothing new to say Softlemonades (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Diffs numbered 41 and 42 above are separated by another editor here (not coincidentally the one whom you were reverting). Your regular breaches of 1RR are edit warring regardless of whether they are the same or different material (in your case you've breached 1RR with both the same and with different material, as shown above). You're right on one small point, there's nothing new to add here: merely more of the same inappropriate behaviour and clear breaches of page edit warring sanction on your part. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Diffs numbered 41 and 42 above are separated by another editor here You proved my memory wrong and why I couldnt have done it in a single revert and had to do the edits separately

(not coincidentally the one whom you were reverting) Burrobert and I actually get along well User_talk:Burrobert#Useful_edits [201] and have been working together on a series of edits on WikiLeaks Softlemonades (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Softlemonades, please refrain from editing your comments after they've received a reply. Your claim that the first of my two edits "reverted the text" is false, whether you put it in bold or not. I reworded the opening. Your Pointy edit in which you changed the opening phrase, long having read as "Assange is an Australian editor, publisher...." to "Assange is a prisoner" is yet another example of your inability to edit appropriately and in a collaborative way on this page. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I didnt see the reply until after the edit was made.

I reworded the opening. to restore a version that people objected to. that my edit summary said was a problem. update beginning of lead to include prisoner in Belmarsh, fix "is" hacker dispute

There was nothing disruptive about the edit, as I said. I did not remove the editor, publisher... content from the first sentence even though you left out ... from your second quote. I changed it to has been because the other editor, NadVolum, said they objected to is a hacker even though RSes call him that. You could have just removed is a prisoner which is what you said you objected to, and not restored the content that NadVolum said they objected to since they hadnt said yet that they also had problems with has been, but you restored what they objected to on BLP grounds. Then you restored it again.

What is an example of your inability to edit appropriately and in a collaborative way is your reverting my Rollback to before either of our edits with the edit summary Unsupported characterisation of living person.

If you dont have other accusations to make, the admins should review Softlemonades (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Unlike your original post here, the facts supported by diffs that I posted above about your problematic behaviour are not mere accusations, but factually accurate observation of your regular breach of the 1RR sanction which you've made quite clear you are perfectly aware of.

I made one edit, you immediately broke 1rr and accused me of imaginary "edit warring", then I made a revert. This isn't the first time you've breached 1rr or the other sanction on the page. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not read this except to see the CT restrictions cited. It should be removed and copied to the AE board. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment As an uninvovled admin, I am thinking this should be taken to WP:AE for a analysis by a team of uninvolved admins and a more structured discussion. Courcelles (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Courcelles@SPECIFICO I agree. This isn't the place to handle the problem. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

per the two admins above and myself making three. When I saw the page being under 1RR and consensus in the discussion (itself long enough to suggest it should be somewhere else), I immediately wondered if this was the right place for it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Oozora Subaru reported by User:AngusWOOF (Result: Blocked 72 hours for repeatedly blanking this report)

Page: Shikimori's Not Just a Cutie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oozora Subaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [202]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

In the series, the two main characters do not reveal their full given names until the end of the manga series. Throughout the manga and the anime television adaptation, they are referred to and listed in the character profiles by their last name and an honorific, implying this is their most common name. MOS:TVCHAR, MOS:ANIME The editor is insisting that the character name gets changed to their full name.

I've been trying to put in information that explains this discrepancy but each of my attempts to do so have been reverted by the editor without any reasons or explanation.

I have left notes on the talk page for the series as well as their talk page, and I have changed the way the information is presented, first by putting in (full name) / (common name) and then later changing to full name with common name as a footnote. Both have been reverted without explanation.

• My attempt to use full name / common name: [203]
• reverted: [204]
• My undoing of that with more explanation on the comments: [205]
• reverted: [206]
• My rewriting it with the full name and the common name as a footnote: [207]
• reverted: [208]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Shikimori's Not Just a Cutie#honorifics and character names
• User_talk:Oozora_Subaru#Shikimori's_Not_Just_a_Cutie_character_names

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

• [209]

Comments:

Reported user has attempted to remove this multiple times, which to me suggests they are WP:NOTHERE. If you are actually innocent then let it play out and nothing will happen. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• I blocked Oozora Subaru for 72 hours for disruptive editing for repeatedly blanking this report. If any admin reviewing the report believes a longer block is necessary, there's no need to consult me.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Rodd Thompson reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: 04:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Referenced in article."

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "REFUSAL TO COLLABORATE WITH GAY EDITOR."
2. 05:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "REFUSAL TO COLLABORATE WITH GAY EDITOR."
3. 04:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Is there a blood test for political affiliation? No, it requires journalistic OPINION. Did you even read what you just wrote? Revert bullying/WP:OWN bollocks yet AGAIN."
4. 04:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1147151371 by Gadfium (talk) Consensus for what, exactly? Content that is already referenced in the body? The lede is supposed to summarised. Please drop the bullying and WP:OWN bollocks."
5. 04:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Revert continuous WP:OWN bollocks. Obviously determining someone's political affiliation requires a degree of journalist opinion!"
6. Consecutive edits made from 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) to 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
   1. 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Restoring referenced content per WP:OWN. You were wrong in saying my addition was unreferenced, admit your mistake instead of trying to "win"."
   2. 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) ""
7. 04:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1147149227 by Beccaynr (talk) 100% supported. Try reading the body of the article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull#Factually incorrect to suggest Keen is supported by neo-Nazis - Recent discussion on this content prior to Rodd's edits this evening.

Comments:

Rodd has made no fewer than 5 reverts in the last hour on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, restoring content in contravention to WP:BLPRESTORE despite being warned by multiple editors on their talk page and in edit summaries. Rodd has also accused multiple editors of bullying during the process of these reverts and warnings. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I made a duplicate report. The only thing I have to add is that the article is covered by a contentious topic "consensus required restriction". RT is formally aware of the CT area and still breached the restriction repeatedly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th and Firefangledfeathers, the unsourced/poorly sourced content that appears to be contrary to BLP policy is still in the article at the moment. Beccaynr (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it again on WP:BLPRESTORE grounds. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And Rodd restored it again. As much as I would love to invoke WP:3RRNO#7 I think it's going to be more straightforward for this to be actioned, as Rodd clearly does not care about violating the edit warring policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I added the most recent revert to the list of diffs and moved the earliest diff to the "previous version reverted to", because I think that is the section where it goes (but please move if not). Beccaynr (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I ask that the bullying/WP:OWN of a gay editor on display here be taken seriously. Rodd Thompson (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Support a 24 hour block so they can cool down and discuss this on the talk page. They're reverting editors on sight, so the closing admin should check the page to make sure their potential BLP violation is not kept. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I reverted my own edit before FormalBully posted this. Rodd Thompson (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Given this comment and their self-victimization in edit summaries and on their user page, I support a WP:NOTHERE indef. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree.

Bzzzing (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. See block log for details.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Aamirbinshafi reported by User:Technopat (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Kavita Krishnamurti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 20:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 15:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."
2. 21:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
3. 08:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Only warning: Harassment of other users on User:Technopat."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Blocked – for a period of 72 hours But only because of the 3RR violations. I would remind the reporter that, as obstinate as this editor has been, you are still on better ground making these reports if you open a talk page thread, which in this case you didn't (indeed, the last thread is two years old). Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User:216.154.17.86 reported by User:Garuda28 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Template:Military branches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 216.154.17.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [210]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [211]
2. [212]
3. [213]
4. [214]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [215]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [216]

Comments:
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. - Aoidh (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

User:MapReader reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Warned)

Page: Los Angeles bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC) "Restore long-term stable version. If you really want to re-run a twenty year old argument, take it to the talk page."
2. 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1147236205 by Rreagan007 (talk)"
3. 06:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Yes, but the article refers to official Olympic events and the IOC terminology applies"
4. 02:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1147109261 by Rreagan007 (talk) Olympic event titles are defined by the IOC"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2028 Summer Olympics."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC) on User talk:MapReader "/* March 2023 */ Reply"

Comments:

Edit warring on this article over the use of the word soccer/football. Tried talking to them on their talk page, but they just reverted my warning (and discussion) [217] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is an ill-informed report. As per the talk page for the LA Olympics article, it is an established precedent for over twenty years that Olympic events are referred to by their internationally recognised IOC titles. Hence Olympic football is ‘football’, not ‘soccer’, although the edit to this article includes soccer in brackets so as to make the position clear to all readers. Similarly the 100 metres is the ‘100 metres’, not the ‘109 yards’. The editor raising this complaint came along and made a change to the long-standing settled position of this article without bothering to raise the matter on the talk page of this article, or to the main LA28 article, where regular editors to that article are very familiar with the issue, raised back in 2000 in relation to the Sydney Games. Articles about the Olympics refer to its events by their proper titles; it’s as simple as that. A convention observed by the official LA28.org website itself, that despite being written in American English throughout, refers to football events as ‘football’, per the IOC. That this editor feels his challenge to the long-established status quo deserves raising an incident on this page is most disappointing. MapReader (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@MapReader: Your last revert was a few hours outside the 24-hour window. Therefore, I am only warning you that if you continue to edit-war, you may be blocked. Instead, you, Rreagan007, who was the one who changed the article and added an American English template to the Talk page, and Sportsfan 1234, should take this where it belongs, to the article Talk page. And please do not discuss the merits of the content dispute here as this is not the place for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Blubluman reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Sabanci family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Hacı Ömer Sabancı (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blubluman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [218]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [219]
2. [220]
3. [221]
4. [222]

Second page of edit warring:

1. [223]
2. [224]
3. [225]
4. [226]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Blubluman has not chosen to use the article talk page. Others too.

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

Comments:

Blubluman has chosen to dig up some obscure discussion(2014) on RSN stating there was a consensus to remove referenced information from the Sabanci family. 4 reverts and zero discussion later, Blubluman has still made no effort to discuss anything. Also see the SPI. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Topic discussed earlier by 7 users at RSN. 6 of them commented on "must be removed". But there is no consensus, yeah. Blubluman (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit offensive attitude? Blubluman (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• I blocked Blubluman as a sock at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677 reported by User:10mmsocket (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Winnipeg Police Service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Magnolia677 (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:

Because of Magnolia677's edit warring, the article was fully-proected for several days. He/she went forum shopping for support, but didn't get the desired answer. Once the article was unprotected I made a series of edits to address his/her concerns, removing and replacing all the contentious references with reliable ones and also requesting citations for the ones I couldn't immediately replace (diff). However, has immediately gone into the article and *twice* deleted the content, minutes later, not giving me or anyone else a chance to go find appropriate references. That's really poor behaviour - just like his/her behaviour that got the article protected - just blindly deleting stuff. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey friend, I know you're probably disappointed that the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WPG Police Cause Harm didn't go your way, but removing an unreliable source, and then adding "citation needed" notices to the equally questionable content left behind, does not fix the problem. There was probably a reason the editor who added this train wreck of an edit used blacklisted sources nestled in nowikis in the first place. For this reason, your edit has been challenged, per WP:BURDEN. If you want others to find sources for dubious content, start a discussion on the talk page. But geez, don't run here to report editors who remove your unsourced content (that you know is under suspicion). Magnolia677 (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• This looks like an instance where WP:Boomerang should be applied. Magnolia667's inquiry about the use of unreliable sources in the article at RSN was validated, not rejected. There is nothing improper about removing unsourced text - that's how BRD is supposed to work. Edit warring to restore unsourced and unreliably sources text without any effort to discuss it, on the other hand, is a sanctionable problem. Banks Irk (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  3RRNO allows excess reverting over sourcing issues only if the information in question is BLP-related. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Scientelensia reported by User:RossButsy (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Long term edit warring on multiple pages related to football. Refuses to engage in discourse has been warned multiple times by moderators. RossButsy (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

RossButsy has been doing the exact same thing so I do not believe that this is just. They told me to take concerns to the talk page and then said that my edits were “offensive mate” on the talk page. Then they decided to delete information on a page which had been there for a while and got angry.

Also, on the David Luiz page I merely stopped people deleting content with no reason. However, when a reason was provided, I changed the page as I agreed with the person that the sources were perhaps not useful. I also thanked the person that made the comment. You can see on the diffs that I made the changes that the user requested.

I think it is fair to say that Ross Butsy has been both rude and incorrect in removing text for the reason that “Not constructive or conducive to the article”. The text they removed there was text that had been there long before I had started to edit the page, and they provided no reason why analysis on Fabinho, which can be seen in many other pages, was irrelevant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147730149?diffmode=source

I personally find it much easier to work with constructive editors like MattytheWhite rather than those who make destructive edits for little reason. For instance MattytheWhite considers all the content added and makes partial reverts for good reasons if needed. Others do not.

I am afraid that RossButsy has a reputation of removing legitimate content that they do not agree with for no good reason. In fact, the user has been blocked owing to this in the past. User talk:RossButsy (Sections: Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion, February 2023.) The user has also deleted comments on their talk page that indicate their wrongdoing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1137389306?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1043334418?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1042199257?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1040809702?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1042194614?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1041287262?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1024072116?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1022516534?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1020693110?diffmode=source. There are so many more examples which can be found by looking at the history of RossButsy’s talk page and this user has often tried to clean out messages which incriminate them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1019177712?diffmode=source.

Rather a lot of these diffs do in fact show that Butsy has been questioned on their needless content removal. You can also see how another user has asked Butsy to stop “harassing” them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035058971?diffmode=source

This really tells you all you need to know. Reading it up can see that the user tried to be inflammatory rather than helpful or discursive:Talk:Fabinho (footballer, born 1993)

Links to diffs of Butsy’s reverts and deletions without reasons on pages which I am involved with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147730149?diffmode=sourcehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147666482?diffmode=sourcehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147666537?diffmode=sourcehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147540173?diffmode=sourcehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147666251?diffmode=sourcehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147530496?diffmode=sourcehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147530735?diffmode=source

I also wanted to engage with the user, but they disregarded it as “Nonsense” and simply deleted it. Special:MobileDiff/1147728909

In conclusion, I believe it is clear to see why I regard this submission of me here by RossButsy as more than slightly hypocritical, if not plainly rude. I believe that action needs to be take regarding the constant misuse of Wikipedia of this user, despite their pledge to not “edit war and [instead] discuss and if that fails disengage”, and I believe that many others would agree. Scientelensia (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [228]

1. [229]

1. [230]

1. [231]

1. [232]

1. [233]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [234]

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

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Scientelensia reported by User:RossButsy (Result: Nuanced)

Pages:
Fabinho (footballer, born 1993) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
David Luiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [236]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [237]
2. [238]
3. [239]
4. [240]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [241]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [242]

Comments:

Scientelensia’s defending statement

RossButsy has been doing the exact same thing so I do not believe that this is just. They told me to take concerns to the talk page and then said that my edits were “offensive mate” on the talk page. Then they decided to delete information on a page which had been there for a while and got angry.

Also, on the David Luiz page I merely stopped people deleting content with no reason. However, when a reason was provided, I changed the page as I agreed with the person that the sources were perhaps not useful. I also thanked the person that made the comment. You can see on the diffs that I made the changes that the user requested.

I think it is fair to say that Ross Butsy has been both rude and incorrect in removing text for the opinionated reason that it was “Not constructive or conducive to the article”. The text they removed there was text that had been there long before I had started to edit the page, and they provided no reason why analysis on Fabinho (similar analysis can be seen in many other pages) was irrelevant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147730149?diffmode=source

I personally find it much easier to work with constructive editors like MattytheWhite rather than those who make destructive edits for little reason. For instance MattytheWhite considers all the content added and makes partial reverts for good reasons if needed. Others do not.

I am afraid that RossButsy has a reputation of removing legitimate content that they do not agree with for no good reason. In fact, the user has been blocked owing to this in the past. User talk:RossButsy (Sections: Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion, February 2023.) The user has also deleted comments on their talk page that indicate their wrongdoing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1137389306?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1043334418?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1042199257?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1040809702?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1042194614?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1041287262?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1024072116?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1022516534?diffmode=source and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1020693110?diffmode=source. There are so many more examples which can be found by looking at the history of RossButsy’s talk page and this user has often tried to clean out messages which incriminate them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1019177712?diffmode=source.

Rather a lot of these diffs do in fact show that Butsy has been questioned on their needless content removal and on other misdemeanours (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattythewhite&oldid=913244272). You can also see how another user has asked Butsy to stop “harassing” them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1035058971?diffmode=source

This talk page really tells you all you need to know. Reading it one can see that the user tried to be inflammatory rather than helpful or discursive:Talk:Fabinho (footballer, born 1993)

Links to diffs of Butsy’s reverts and deletions without reasons on pages which I am involved with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147730149?diffmode=sourcehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147666482?diffmode=sourcehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147666537?diffmode=sourcehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147540173?diffmode=sourcehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147666251?diffmode=sourcehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147530496?diffmode=sourcehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1147530735?diffmode=source

I also wanted to engage with the user, but they disregarded it as “Nonsense” and simply deleted it. Special:MobileDiff/1147728909

In conclusion, I believe it is clear to see why I regard this submission of me here by RossButsy as more than slightly hypocritical, if not plainly rude. I believe that action needs to be take regarding the constant misuse of Wikipedia of this user, despite their pledge to not “edit war and [instead] discuss and if that fails disengage”, and I believe that many others would agree.

Okay,

• Scientelensia is partially blocked from editing the article about Fabinho (footballer, born 1993) for two weeks, to prevent further ownership behavior and violations of WP:BLPRESTORE.
• RossButsy is blocked from editing for two weeks, not limited to a specific article as the behavior has repeatedly occurred in various biographies of living people, and
• RossButsy is restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours for a year; details can be found at [243].

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

User: 2600:1009:B1C1:8C34:7051:5BF8:56C1:30EF reported by User:Filmssssssssssss (Result: Blocked and semi-protected)

Page: Shaggy Rogers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1009:B1C1:8C34:7051:5BF8:56C1:30EF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaggy_Rogers&oldid=1147914956

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaggy_Rogers&oldid=1147763142
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaggy_Rogers&diff=prev&oldid=1147762933&diffmode=source
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaggy_Rogers&oldid=1147914926
4. [diff]

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:
Previously taken to WP:AIV, recommended to be forwarded here 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)}}

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for clear vandalism, and Page protected as there is vandalism from multiple IPs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User:User10281129 reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Joseon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User10281129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [244]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
May

1. [245]
2. [246]
3. [247]
4. [248]

Jan

1. [249]
2. [250]
3. [251]

Feb

1. [252]
2. [253]
3. [254]

Apr

1. [255]
2. [256]
3. [257]
4. [258]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [259]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [260]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [261]

Comments:

Prolonged edit warring over the same or similar material by User:User10281129 at Joseon since May 2022 and WP:IDHT. After discussion and disagreement at talk page the user came back to try to no edit summary sneak in the same change (Feb Apr). The same kind of tendentious edit warring behavior can be found throughout their edit history in other articles (ex. [262] [263] [264] [265] [266]). Previously had issues brought up here regarding WP:COMPETENCE (edit spamming, poor English, hard to understand or nonsensical logic; see recent reversions, my talk) and WP:NPA. I also suspect they might be this Special:Contributions/183.98.152.118 here who has made similar edits with poor grammar at Joseon in January 2022 ([267]) and edited economy articles similar to User10281129 (ex. [268] [269]).Qiushufang (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

i did nothing wrong. Why are you reporting me? User10281129 (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

you are interrupting my edits for no reason. You are tailing me and deleting all my edits. You are the one who casing edit war. I told you to stop tailing me. But you are still tailing me. When I edit on the page, he appear and delete my edits right away. This happened habitually on almost every page. And he says im doing edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

did i something wrong this time? Let me ask you. Why are you deleting my edits? I didn't fix anything. The contents are entirely almost same. I was just adding more details. You have no reason to delete my all edits like that.User10281129 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

if i did anything wrong, you should report me, But not this time. Because i didn't do anything wrong. But you reported me and you are bringing the past — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

he or she was keep tailing me and deleted all my edits since 2022. His report is malicious, not legitimate.User10281129 (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

today i asked him several times. "Whats your reason" but he didnt give me a reason and he kept deleting my edits. User10281129 (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for 4 reverts within 24 hours. From what I can see User10281129 (talk · contribs) made four reverts on 2 April (1, 2, 3, 4) while Qiushufang (talk · contribs) made three reverts on 2 April (1, 2, 3). Both editors are edit-warring, and the the subject hasn't been discussed by either editor on a talk page since 30 January. Quishufang, please be aware that if you continue to revert on that article you may be blocked as well. Instead of reverting each other over the span of months, use the talk page to resolve the dispute (using either WP:3O or WP:DRN if outside opinions are needed to help form a consensus). - Aoidh (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User:103.120.117.94 reported by User:Unnamed anon (Result: Warned)

Page: List of Tekken characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.120.117.94 (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1147867253&diffmode=source
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1147868731
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1147880178&diffmode=source
4. [diff]

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: Good-faith but misguided IP is warring over adding characters' gender to the character tables, despite it being irrelevant and only two options. We are discussing it on the article talk page, but this info is completely irrelevant and it would be worth telling the IP about the rules on cruft in addition to edit warring.

Per above, warned since they had not violated 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Mmk9890 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Blocked one week)

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

User being reported: Mmk9890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "Then state your valid reason with a source to bolster it for removing sourced material please. One of the first and most well known rules is to leave a note when editing."
2. 03:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "No explanation for removing sourced material"
3. 03:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "No explanation for removing sourced material"
4. 03:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "Are you listening, tyrant? I am a historian what are you? I said where is your evidence that proves otherwise. Heru-Wer is not Horus the Elder and you can not argue with that because other deities use the term as well. Go learn some Egyptian before you get involved bully tyrant."
5. 03:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "I have no idea what most of that means either you have the wrong article or the wrong user? Either way you can't remove already sourced written content without a valid reason. You haven't provided a valid reason. The link from Budge doesn't prove Wer doesn't exist. I can see from checking other sources and users that it's already been established Wer in Egyptian in fact translates to great not elder. Under no uncertainty Heru-Wer is not Horus the Elder."
6. 00:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "How dare you argue with sourced facts and then lock querying users out you disgusting bully thugs none of us like you find a source that proves it wrong or leave it alone you nasty vicious vultures. Disgusting. Great dishonour and shame you bring."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Horus."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */"

Comments:

It seems that the user has removed the pp-protected template on Horus which he is not post to do that. Untamed1910 (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of one week by myself after an AIV report. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Now indeffed by Tamzin for TP abuse. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Solaire the knight reported by User:Staberinde (Result:24 hours partially blocked, later 72h full block )

Page: Slava Ukraini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solaire the knight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [270]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [271]
2. [272]
3. [273]
4. [274]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [275]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [276]

Comments: The article lead used to be stable until 27 march, when undiscussed change started getting pushed in. Solaire the knight is trying to edit war this change in, despite objections from multiple editors.--Staberinde (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The user himself participates in the edit war, ignoring any attempts to discuss it (the edit war message was posted on my page by another user who didn't even appear to be involved in the conflict). While I commented on this on the talk page, yes. "Various authors" is him about himself and about the participant who initially tried to remove from the article any mention of the connection of the nationalist slogan with the nationalists, and also tried to pass off the version of the article before editing for some kind of consensus and stable version just because there was no this text. I will even keep silent about the fact that a person who does not live in Ukraine is trying to accuse me of original research on facts known to most Ukrainians, this is already poetry. The problem itself is that the user himself, without any problems, participates in the edit war and ignores the talk page, while at the same time trying to portray the conflict as one-sided. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Stable version is here [277]. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators can check the edit history themselves. Please do not tell them which version it was most convenient for you to return the page to before they decided. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Solaire the knight has continued edit warring well beyond 3rr, see [278], [279]. That's at least 6rr. The first edit summary shows an inability to accept that consensus is against them as well: The opinion of one side of the dispute cannot be a consensus by definition.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm continuing it because user Ermerich is obviously provoking it at the moment, either by making outright formal kickbacks, or by formally unsubscribing from the discussion, trying to pass off a large number of participants on the side of "pro-Ukrainian" users as a neutral consensus. After this post, it's pretty obvious that you're just trying to be someone else's cannon fodder in the conflict right now, as my opponents want to get my ban for the edit war and not be targeted themselves (your attempts to look like a random person are ridiculous, if only because the slogan that caused the controversial slogan is right on your page). Solaire the knight (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  as my opponents want to get my ban for the edit war
  Well why are you letting them go with it? Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• I obviously would have gotten banned without it. The situation itself is symbolic, that my opponents are biased enough to use provocations and other users to achieve my blocking even bypassing the original dispute. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• If you don't edit war, Solaire the knight, you won't get blocked. We couldn't "engineer" or "provoke" you to keep making reverts. You need to review wiki-policies live WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDIT WARRING - when you don't get your way, no matter how right you think you are, you can't use it as an excuse to revert to your preferred version. Honestly, you got off pretty easy with only a partial block.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• So you're literally saying that it's my own fault that you provoked me into further undoing edits in order to achieve my block at an accelerated pace? Very original. I often saw such logic during bulling, but now I meet it for the first time as part of a Wikipedia conflict, interesting. In any case, I'd rather not listen to lectures on finding consensus from a man who continues to fizzle out edit wars in order to block his ideological opponents. Especially the Germans who place the slogans of German collaborators from my former country on their page. Thank you. You may consider this as my open refusal to have any discussion directly with you. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Is this the "look what you made me do!" defense to edit warring? I suggest you give it up. No one made you edit war.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 6 reverts is quite excessive. Partially blocked for a day. Courcelles (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  And now a 72 hour site-wide block for... <gestures upwardly> that. Courcelles (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User:MatewH reported by User:GMH Melbourne (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Liberal Party of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1147766208 by GMH Melbourne (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Liberal Party of Australia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring following a two week ban for edit warring ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 09:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Objectivescholar reported by User:Moxy (Result: Pblocked from article)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "This section referenced the United State's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/nigeria/). The information on the Factbook is different from that which is in the page. According to the Factbook, the ethnic composition of Nigeria is as follows Hausa 30%, Yoruba 15.5%, Igbo (Ibo) 15.2%, Fulani 6%, Tiv 2.4%, Kanuri/Beriberi 2.4%, Ibibio 1.8%, Ijaw/Izon 1.8%, other 24.9% (2018 est.). lock the page and block the vandal please!"
2. 18:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "This section referenced the United State's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/nigeria/). The information on the Factbook is different from that which is in the page. According to the Factbook, the ethnic composition of Nigeria is as follows Hausa 30%, Yoruba 15.5%, Igbo (Ibo) 15.2%, Fulani 6%, Tiv 2.4%, Kanuri/Beriberi 2.4%, Ibibio 1.8%, Ijaw/Izon 1.8%, other 24.9% (2018 est.). lock the page and block the vandal please!"
3. 09:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "This section referenced the United State's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/nigeria/). The information on the Factbook is different from that which is in the page. According to the Factbook, the ethnic composition of Nigeria is as follows Hausa 30%, Yoruba 15.5%, Igbo (Ibo) 15.2%, Fulani 6%, Tiv 2.4%, Kanuri/Beriberi 2.4%, Ibibio 1.8%, Ijaw/Izon 1.8%, other 24.9% (2018 est.). lock the page and block the vandal please!"
4. 00:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "This section referenced the United State's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/nigeria/). The information on the Factbook is different from that which is in the page. According to the Factbook, the ethnic composition of Nigeria is as follows Hausa 30%, Yoruba 15.5%, Igbo (Ibo) 15.2%, Fulani 6%, Tiv 2.4%, Kanuri/Beriberi 2.4%, Ibibio 1.8%, Ijaw/Izon 1.8%, other 24.9% (2018 est.). lock the page and block the vandal please!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation."
2. 20:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "/* April 2023 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Let's just restrict the one page....get them talking about mass copyright copy pasting Moxy- 20:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you know what you are taking about. The edit has nothing to do with text talkless of being regarded as a violation of copyright. The edit was to reflect the correct data from the cited source. I explained all that in my edit summaries. A vandal keep reverting the change. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivescholar (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Objectivescholar Your edit summaries did not completely address the change. Specifically, they did not address the insertion of the three paragraph blockquote. Also, please do not call good-faith editors vandals. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:Undue... but mass copy pasting ...[280] is the main concern here.Moxy- 21:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Please go through it again to understand the situation better and properly. It is about the ethnic composition of Nigeria. The page cited the CIA World Factbook, but the information on the page is different from that of the Factbook. So, I edit it to reflect the correct data.

There is something I am not understanding. Joe is this a violation of copyright? The data is in numerical form and not even a sentence or a paragraph.

Go through it again and reverse that unjust block please. Objectivescholar (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Objectivescholar Have you looked at the diff of your own edit? I get the feeling you don't realize what all you've been putting back into the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The portion of the edit that had to do with CIA Factbook data on ethic populations was a valid edit, and I have reinstated that part of the edit. It's the rest of the edit—the typo in "163rd" and the blockquote—that are problematic. I endorse Black Kite's block. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the actual content of the CIAF was not the issue; it was the edit-warring and copypasting. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh. I get it. I am not the one who made that 163rd edit. Check it again Objectivescholar (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Objectivescholar I did. It was in your edit. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The edit was made by a user called Altoumulus on April 1st at 07:56. The page history is there for you to see.

Seems I now understand the problem. I am not the one that added that quote. I just restored a former version of the page which coincidentally contain the quote already fixed by the user Moxy. All is well. Objectivescholar (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from editing Nigeria, indefinitely. Far too many problems here. Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Talking to them now.....all done in good faith...just new ...will help. Moxy- 21:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm a bit late to this but I think this should extend to all content on Nigerian ethnic groups, half of this user's entire history is adding questionable content or data for or against certain ethnicities. Watercheetah99 (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

User:SLBedit reported by User:Sol505000 (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

Page: S.L. Benfica (youth) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SLBedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [281]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [282]
2. [283]
3. [284]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [285]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [286]

Comments:

[nj] is not how a syllable can end in Portuguese, the correct transcription is [ʒuˈnjɔɾɨʃ] in isolation and [ʒuˈnjɔɾɨʒ] in the context of the phrase Juniores do Sport Lisboa e Benfica. Per the linked talk page, they see no difference between the palatal approximant and the close front unrounded vowel, which is an amateurish mistake.

Now, onto the voicing of the final /ʃ/. Per Cruz-Ferreira (1999:128), Syllable-final /ʃ/ occurs as [ʒ] before a voiced consonant (except before /ʒ/ itself, where it is deleted), and as [z] before a syllable-initial vowel both within and across word boundaries, as in [ku̯al duʒ doi̯z ɛɾɔ] qual dos dois era o 'which of the two (m) was the (m)' in the transcribed passage. Her [ku̯al duʒ doi̯z ɛɾɔ] translates into our [kwal duʒ ðojz ɛɾɐ ɔ] per Help:IPA/Portuguese and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Other languages. In the context of Portugese, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian, Polish etc. we transcribe how the whole phrases are pronounced, not just individual words (not even robots speak like that). This information was available to the editor at Portuguese phonology#Consonant phonotactics even before they started reverting me.

Previous report, about the transcription of /l/ in European Portuguese:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive466#User:SLBedit reported by User:Sol505000 (Result: let's hope this will be settled amicably). I'm tired of dealing with this to be honest. Sol505000 (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week from the article. The last couple months' edit history show that Bedit has consistently reverted a variety of editors, in the process likening them to children and disparaging their knowledge. In this context it is thus rather ironic that they have counseled others that "If you are blindly reverting my work, you are not trying to reach a compromise."

Yes, there has been discussion on the talk page of the most recent flareup (about which I want you to step back and consider: In an article about a sports team, you are edit-warring over IPA characters. Hardly a substantial aspect of the article. But that's not unique, unfortunately).) But all it has established is that SLB has their mind made up. As their block log indicates a history of actionable edit warring and disruption (a history which, to be fair, ends six years ago), a weeklong enforced break from the article seems to be most appropriate.

However, Sol, this does not leave you entirely faultless. You should (and still could) have availed yourself of other dispute resolution mechanisms, like DRN or 3O that would have brought in other editors to forge a stronger consensus (or at least convince SLB that he was sailing into the wind).

Also, if making reports here in the future, leave out the substantive discussion. We are interested here only in whether an editor has breached 3RR (not in this case) or blockably edit warred. The only time the content of the edits is relevant is when the exceptions to 3RR/EW are alleged, which they are not here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Itsmehiimyourbestieitsme reported by User:Edwordo13 (Result: Blocked one week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [287]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [288]
2. [289]
3. [290]
4. [291]
5. [292]
6. [293]
7. [294]

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: [295]

Comments:

The user keeps on adding numerous large plot additions to the article, and were reverted as I seem that these are good faith edits. In addition, the user has also verbally attacked me and accused me of being "disruptive" on my talk page, as seen here [296] and here. [297]

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Tekrmn reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Declined)

Page: 2023 Covenant School shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tekrmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2023-04-06T04:19:48
2. 2023-04-06T04:50:15
3. 2023-04-06T05:08:12
4. 2023-04-06T06:13:01

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2023-04-06T05:09:44

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2023_Covenant_School_shooting#Deadname

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [298]

Comments:

Given their short editing history here, and the fact the account was created a few months ago with one edit, I have to wonder if this isn't just a sleeper troll account/WP:SPA and if we should just skip to an indef block for WP:NOTHERE. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This user did certainly pass 3RR after having been given a warning, but the accusation of being a sleeper troll or WP:SPA is wholly unsupported by their contributions thus far. All have been constructive — this is an edit war over a disagreement in the reading of policy in which you are the other party, but there is no evidence that it is motivated on their part by trolling or editing with a single purpose. To that end, an immediate indef block is absolutely not a sensible next step. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:2C3E:9128:A991:DBC1 (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I did not understand how important this rule is to Wikipedia's functioning until doing more reading after my latest revert. I have seen a lot of templates on articles and did not realize the seriousness of this particular template at the time. While I think that the edits I made reflect the MOS, I have edited the article again to show Hale's birth name where Locke is arguing it belongs. I understand that editing in the manner I did is considered an edit war and is not an appropriate way to handle disputes. I will not do this again in the future and will continue to do my best to follow all of the rules of Wikipedia. I created this account to make what I feel are positive contributions that fall within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I am not trolling, I am not single-purpose editing, and I am only interesting in using Wikipedia as it was intended. I apologize for engaging in an edit war and for taking up time with this report. Tekrmn (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Tekrmn partially self-reverted at 06:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC). ––FormalDude (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Fully self-reverted at 07:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC). 2600:1700:87D3:3460:2C3E:9128:A991:DBC1 (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Declined per above discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

User:142.67.89.165 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Colonial empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 142.67.89.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [299]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [300]
2. [301]
3. [302]
4. [303]
5. [304]
6. [305]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [306],[307]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [308],[309],[310]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [311]

Comments:
[312],[313] Editor indicates they have no intention to stop. Has been on a slow revert war since 28 March [314], which has escalated in last 24 hrs. Please note that I stopped at 2RR yeterday but they reverted an earlier edit of mine given the impression of 3RR [315]. See edit history [316]. WCM_email 07:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours If they carry on edit-warring after the block expires, let me know and I'll issue a longer block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Has now registered an account Mario98765 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and carried on in the same vein [317],[318]. Notified Ritchie. WCM_email 07:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

User:User10281129 reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Joseon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User10281129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [319]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [320]
2. [321]
3. [322]
4. [323]
5. [324]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [325]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [326]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [327]

Comments:

Per previous edit war report. User immediately went back to reinstate their changes after block period ended. There's also substantial evidence that they are a sock: [328]. Qiushufang (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Aoidh (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Jonathan Kent Is Still Alive reported by User:Throast (Result: Page protected; Jonathan Kent Is Still Alive blocked as a sock)

Page: The Super Mario Bros. Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jonathan Kent Is Still Alive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WP:ONUS

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

Comments:

New editor with an evident lack of understanding of core policies and topic-specific guidelines. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

"Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore and PostTrak (include both if available), may be used and placed in the appropriate release or reception-based section, depending on the available context, but the content is not required to be in a "Critical reception" section." You yourself sent me this, I followed the rules, you're just contradicting yourself at this point (as I also wrote in my last post-edit explanation to The Super Mario Bros. Movie), I don't even know why we're making such a problem about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Kent Is Still Alive (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not the place to carry out content disputes. The quote you are citing is not the one I cited, and it is irrelevant to the dispute. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this must be some kind of joke, because it's written right here, this is the link you sent me: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Audience_reception Jonathan Kent Is Still Alive (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, the subject of this report has been reverted not only by me, but by at least three other editors. Not a single editor was in support of the offending editor's changes, so one could argue that there is already consensus not to include the disputed material. The subject has also turned out to be a sock, see below. Considering these circumstances, I'm not sure if dispute protection is necessary. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update re: sockpuppet. I'll undo the protection EvergreenFir (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Jonathan Kent Is Still Alive blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Batreeq reported by User:Leechjoel9 (Result:Both blocked 24 hours )

Page: Asmara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Batreeq (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:

2023

1. [329]
2. [330]
3. [331]
4. [332]

2022

1. [333]
2. [334]
3. [335]
4. [336]

2021

1. [337]
2. [338]
3. [339]
4. [340]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [341]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [342]

Comments:
Persitent one topic edit warring. User did not reach consensus in 2021 in adding arabic as native language in the info box, has been consitent with edit warring the article since then. User has been reported before for the same issue.Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ad this is happening yet again, and you're both edit warring. You're also both now fully aware of CTOP procedures, and I will be putting a formal warning in the WP:AELOG for both of you. Courcelles (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Courcelles: what are CTOP procedures? Where was I informed of them? I am not aware of what that is. Furthermore, I attempted to engage in dialogue on the article's talk page to no success. I was ignored and then told by the edit warrior, but in an edit summary which is not appropriate (WP:REVTALK), that I need consensus to restore that revision (not true - WP:CONS). Then a block follows as a punishment - WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. I am extremely disappointed and was unjustly blocked. This issue really is a result of the other party refusing talk page dialogue. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

    You were informed of WP:CTOP by me, after I blocked you for this edit warring. The big blue box at the bottom of your user talk page explains everything. Edit warring is not an acceptable response to uncommunicative editors. Courcelles (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Kcmastrpc reported by User:Andrevan (Result: Partially blocked)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1148824459 by Objective3000 (talk) the only contributors to the discussion are the editors who disputed the edit, hardly healthy. when the discussion has more contributors we should drop this tag though per "when to remove"."
2. 19:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1148705403 by Sideswipe9th (talk) this version violates NPOV, if you disagree, find consensus"
3. 19:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1148704841 by Andrevan (talk) my edits are well within policy and were uncontested until you reverted them without comment, as this is the second removal per WP:ONUS seek consensus on talk page"
4. 19:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1148699783 by Andrevan (talk) per WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, please find WP:ONUS on Talk before reverting"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view."
2. 19:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of "Right wing" and addition of "Left wing" */ new section"
2. 20:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of "Right wing" and addition of "Left wing" */ Reply"
3. 20:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of "Right wing" and addition of "Left wing" */ Reply"
4. 20:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of "Right wing" and addition of "Left wing" */ Reply"
5. 20:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of "Right wing" and addition of "Left wing" */ Reply"
6. 13:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "/* "no policy based rationale for reinserting non RS content" */ new section"
7. 14:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "/* "no policy based rationale for reinserting non RS content" */ Reply"
8. 15:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "/* "no policy based rationale for reinserting non RS content" */ Reply"
9. 15:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of "Right wing" and addition of "Left wing" */ Reply"
10. 15:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of "Right wing" and addition of "Left wing" */ Reply"
11. 15:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "/* "no policy based rationale for reinserting non RS content" */ Reply"
12. 15:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of "Right wing" and addition of "Left wing" */ Reply"
13. 15:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of "Right wing" and addition of "Left wing" */ Reply"
14. 15:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of "Right wing" and addition of "Left wing" */ Reply"

Comments:

• Comment: Diff 1 is in relation to a NPOV tag to solicit discussion over the matter. Additionally, since the 3RR rule was warned, no additional reverts were made for over 24h to let the discussion gain traction, which it had not. This appears to be WP:STICK, as the prose has not be edited since the dispute. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• No, it's 4 reverts to same article in a 24 hour period, that's a bright line rule, and the 4th revert was after warning of 3RR. Andre🚐 15:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, I'll revert the tag, honest mistake. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll close this as "partially blocked"; interested administrators may like to join the discussion at User_talk:ToBeFree#Twitter_Files. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing this article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Vipz reported by User:VQuakr (Result: No violation)

Page: Far-right politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "Returned the pre-Special:Diff/1148403070 lede image, moved the previous one to /* France */, replaced the duplicate in /* United States */ with another. On the talk page at the present - 2 in favor of the Unite the Right lede image, 1 in favor of the France one, 1 stating the France one just meets criteria, others in favor of including an example without clear preference."
2. 19:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1148697195 by Beyond My Ken (talk) please, never revert without an edit summary."
3. 14:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "Removing the image from lead section altogether, like was done on Far-left politics and discussed on its talk page. Lead images should be fully representative of the topic and one carries an implication such as "<Far-right politics> is *this* (shows what looks like a peaceful demonstration on streets)". Moved that image to the relevant section /* France */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Far-right politics."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Lead image removal */ re"

Comments:

No technical breach of 3RR yet, but clear continuation of edit warring plus lawyer-y behavior, after warning, in a WP:ARBAP2 article. VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I will proceed not to touch that article or at very least the lede image in the future. Take into consideration that the 3RR warning by the reporter was placed after the revert asking for edit summary, which I think was unwarranted. –Vipz (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

3RR isn't an entitlement; you shouldn't have made a 2nd let alone a 3rd. VQuakr (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me, 2nd and 3rd what? Revert? 3 diffs listed above are all 3 edits in total I have made to the article. 1 was the mentioned revert, 2 were different bold changes. –Vipz (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Those three edits are all reverts which you would know if you'd read the notice I gave you after the 2nd one. VQuakr (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No violation per above, and discussion seems to support that response. However, the image as is really should be at upright=1.0, per MOS:UPRIGHT ... I really don't see a reason this needs to be this large. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

User:69.143.120.165 reported by User:Ɱ (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

Page: Polyface Farm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.143.120.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff

Warned about removing content numerous times, and attempted to discuss, while further reverts are taking place: User talk:69.143.120.165

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

Comments:

Requesting an IP block for this user continuing to remove valid cited content despite a multitude of warnings, different users reverting, and attempts to discuss. ɱ (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week from the article. I considered a shorter sitewide block but they have edited infrequently, and without rancor (but with minimal discussion outside of edit summaries, which isn't enough). Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

User:2001:56A:F430:1900:CC0A:8974:8A24:B2 reported by User:CastJared (Result: )

Page: Shahrzad Rafati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2001:56A:F430:1900:CC0A:8974:8A24:B2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1148838544 by Zefr (talk) Primary sources are discouraged but allowed."
2. 16:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1148829328 by Reignfall (talk) Primary sources are allowed, but not encouraged."
3. 15:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "Reversing biased changes made by Reignfall."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This caused 3 reverts in a row for undue and unreliable sources. CastJared (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Reignfall, the user noted in the 3rd diff, is a 10-year Single Purpose Account that has exclusively edited this article as well as the subject's company, BroadbandTV Corp. A Conflict of Interest template was removed from both articles by the SPA in June of 2018. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 02:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

User:QuestFour reported by User:Spiralthebandicoot (Result: Stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [343]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [344]
2. [345]
3. [346]
4. [347]
5. [348]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [349]

'Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:’ [350], [351]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [352]

Comments:
{{subst:void|User has been doing redundant edits and removing stuff to their liking, with no regard of other editors’ opinions; their attitude on talk pages have also been passive-aggressive, and they would do the edits even if the other editors do not agree with them.}User also has an extremely prolific record of previous edit warring and blocks. STB (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)}

• Stale. Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  What does Stale mean here? STB (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Toward the top of this page it says in bold "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." The last edit QuestFour made to the article was on April 6, three days before you filed this report. Even as of April 6 QuestFour had not violated 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Reignfall reported by User:148.252.141.201 (Result: Semi-protected; report itself malformed)

Page: BroadbandTV Corp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reignfall (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. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [353] [354]

{{Page has been requested and granted to be locked early in the edit war, due to a request from an employee at the business in question. While I think this is not the worst decision, given supposed minor trolling, it seems more likely this was committed internally to justify locking the page to stop criticism being added at a time when it will be heavily searched for, likely more than it ever has been. }}Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

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

Comments:

• The article has been semi-protected by another administrator, and the report is malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Ganglabesh reported by User:Czello (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Vince McMahon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 18:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 16:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 15:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC) ""
5. 17:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning"
2. 18:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning"
3. 19:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Comments:

Continually re-inserting a copyrighted image with no license. — Czello 20:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Aurelius5150 reported by User:CastJared (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Imamate of Aussa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Aurelius5150 (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 06:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC) to 06:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
   1. 06:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 06:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1148766521 by Magherbin (talk) Stop pushing the narrative, i added cites disproving what information you are putting"
3. 05:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "You reverted my changes with no evidence, plus the spoken language in adal was here described “tous les habitants du royaume d'Adel parlent le même dialecte …: cette communauté de langage est le principal lien de leur nationalité,” Rochet d'Héricourt, Voyage sur la côte orientale de la mer Rouge, 118."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is adding incorrect information, which resulted into 4 reverts in a row. CastJared (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The user has been removing content on the page since last year, they appear to have changed their username since. [355] Magherbin (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. This user continued this edit war. CastJared (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I've given reliable sources for all my claims, but you've removed them. Even when I added more relevant sources, you continued to remove them. I have nothing more to say except to suggest that you read the book. The sources that you put Magherbin is that of recent theories and opinions which are debunked by my sources are anecdotal evidence recorded in time. He can counter what i put with actual evidence but wont and he constantly removes it so it fits what i believe his agenda. If he wants we can have opposing views on the same page, but that will be leaving readers confused , but then readers could then move on and look at the sources and references and see the truth . Aurelius5150 (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Then why you put incorrect information on this article? It already reverted. CastJared (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Competence is also required as well. CastJared (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Im not putting incorrect information, im formatting the article in a proper timeline and context. Magherbin sourced a opinion and hypothesis passing it as fact for given events, I corrected it with actual sources and references at the given time of said events. I noticed his agenda, when the article contained an edit made prior to me even knowing the existence of the page, that edit was correct , and i added onto it, adding more context, then he removes that edit and the one made prior to me, so it doesnt disproves his opinion sources . I and doing nothing wrong but using correct sources and historical books, i should be the one reporting him Aurelius5150 (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The failure to discuss on the talk page led to the above. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

User:24.170.116.143 reported by User:Marleeashton (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Drake Milligan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 24.170.116.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 04:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
3. 04:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 04:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
5. 04:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Drake Milligan."
2. 04:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continues to add unsourced biographical info despite several warnings from me and another editor. Marleeashton (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 04:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

User:97.120.160.166 reported by User:DynCoder (Result: IP blocked 72 hours)

Page: Pz. Sfl. IVc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.120.160.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [356]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [357]
2. [358]
3. [359]
4. [360]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See revert comments

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [361]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [362]

Comments:
IP user made several edits in a row, some of the things in those edits were actual good edits, but a lot was unsourced and changed data to contradict sources. I may have gotten a bit ahead of myself with the initial revert (as in I could have reverted some things by hand instead of reverting and then redoing). However the user reverts my edits even after I manually re-added the good part of their edits. I have told the user to refer to the talk page in my edits, but to no avail. DynCoder (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Now that IP is now edit warring again. CastJared (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure they have double broken 3RR at this point DynCoder (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP keeps engaging an act of edit war. CastJared (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

User:CrashLandingNew reported by User:CanadianSingh1469 (Result: Fully protected, then both blocked)

Page: Insurgency in Punjab, India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CrashLandingNew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [363]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [364]
2. [365]
3. [366]
4. [367]
5. [368]
6. [369]
7. [370]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [371]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [372]

Comments:
User:CanadianSingh1469 is adding sensational claims about casualties in a military operation without any proper citations. Using original research and out of context claim by a person who is not an authority on the topic. When I removed his edits, he kept on restoring them. Also, here, the user is making a complete new claim adding unreliable sources to deny a well known fact about the assassination of former PM of India. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

There are proper citations but you keep reverting them. Also the sources about Rajiv are not unreliable. I had provided 4 sources but you removed them all. I restored them and added more citations with them. Yet you still ignored the sources and reverted my edits. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Also I added per beside. I never said it was the definitive number. I never said he was the authority. I said per Ved Marwah. I provided a source which you claimed unreliable and secondary. I added a source by Ved Marwah himself and you still reverted it. I provided a page number but you claimed I didn’t. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

What reliable source? Are you denying a well known fact that Rajiv Gandhi was killed by LTTE terrorists. You are saying that he was killed by Khalistani terrorists? A claim that is not backed by an reliable source.

Also, the blue star claim about 5600 casualties, where has Marwah said this? He doesn't say 35% casualties of army or a division of army. You are using original research to put your words in his writing. Also, he was an IPS officer not a military officer.

You are ussing original research and out of context comments to make tall claims about casualties in a war. Imagine someone using out of context citations to claim that 8 times more allied forces died in WW2 than what is claimed. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

If you read the sources before reverting they said the Sikhs aided in planning of the assassination. Also read the source from Ved Marwah and the page I gave. You will get your answer. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Just tell me where does Ved Marwah says that 5600 soldiers were killed in action During the operation or where he is specifically mentioning that 35% troops who participated were killed. He doesn't say that anywhere CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Show me the context. You have not read the source and just claim it is out of context. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are adding conspiracy theories as history. Which official source says that khalistani terrorists killed Rajiv Gandhi? Any thug, criminal can help an assassin in minor capacity, doesn't mean he is credited for the assassination. Has any khalistani terrorist organisation claimed his assassination as their doing?

I have addressed Ved Marwah citation, he doesn't say 35% of the Indian army, he only talks about all the casualties that day and he certainly doesn't use a number like 5600 at all. That is all your original research CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Aiding in an assassination means you were involved. The President of the Akali Dal says he saw that 10-12 members of Babbar Khalsa and Jagjit Singh met LTTE members. They planned the assassination. You can read more in the sources I provided instead of removing them. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You are using original research and hearsay. Has any Khalistani terror group claimed his assassination? No. It is a well established fact that he was killed by LTTE terrorists not khalistani terrorists. You can't claim his assassination as a casualty in Sikh extremist militancy. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Is an eyewitness testimony hearsay and using it as a source original research? That is what you’re saying. If we believe that everything is unreliable.

Also Jagjit Singh confirmed he was involved in the assassination to President of Akali Dal. He also said KLF was involved. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Anybody can claim anything that doesn't mean it is the true. Rajiv Gandhi's assassination is a well documented event in history and his killers have clearly been identified as LTTE terrorists, you can't change the fact. Has any authority of any country blamed Khalistani terrorists for Rajiv Gandhi's assassination? CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You asked if Sikh admitted to it. I have provided a Sikh leader who did. Now you cannot accept it. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Which Sikh terrorist group has claimed his assassination? Provide a reliable source not a random claim but a reliable, well recognised source. Has any government recognised khalistani terrorists as his killers? you can't add extrajudicial claims on an encyclopaedia. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

“According to July 1995 testimony received by the Jain Commission inquiry into the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, Khalistani (Sikh separatist) leader Jagjit Singh Chauhan reported that the LTTE and the Khalistani Liberation Force were co-conspirators in the assassination plot against Rajiv Gandhi.” CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

where is the link? Also, has this claim been recognised by a court or investigation agency? CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The 35% casualties is as per him a division based level. There was only 1 division involved which numbered 16,000. So I did the math and it was 5,600. His exact words are, “but 35 percent casualties in a division-level operation cannot be called a well planned and well-executed operation.” CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"...so i did the math" yeah, that is original research not what he is saying. Also, he is not talking about 35% casualties of the division, he is talking about all the casualties, including khalistani terrorists and civilians, read the whole book. Marwah has not mentioned anywhere that 35% of an army division was lost. Nobody can hide that many casualties in a civil conflict, The claim is laughable. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

My friend read the book. He is talking about the army casualties. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No, he is not. Just give me the quote, where he claims that 35% of an Army division was lost in that operation against Khalistani terrorists. You are basically using an out of context quote to push a certain POV. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to argue further. I have provided reliable sources for all my claims. You removed them. When I restored them with more relative sources you kept removing them. Also I cannot say anything more than read the book. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You have not provided any reliable source, you have only added your own original research and out of context quotes as claims. Wikipedia is not a place to add unreliable information without any scholarly backing. Kindly read the book before having an unnecessary argument. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Fully protected for 1 week. This is a simple content dispute and the above discussion should have been happening on the talk page as soon as the first reversion was made. WP:BRD is pretty straightforward - it's not WP:BRRRRRRRR. Also, User:CanadianSingh1469, basing edits on "I did the math" and "My friend read the book" are original research and you can't base anything on that. So, please take this discussion to the talkpage, and when the protection expires I strongly suggest adding nothing that does not have consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why is the removal of sourced content going unpunished. When reliable sources are provided they are ignored. Why is this allowex? Now he is removing sourced information from Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  No removal of sourced content is going on here only removal of unsourced content is going on. You have added same unreliable information and original research to blame new alleged perpetrators for assassinationof a famous figure. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  I didn’t add anything to that article. There is sources for everything but it goes against what you believe so it must be unreliable. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Where are these sources that you keep mentioning? Where is the source that says that court and investigation agencies identity Khalistani terrorists as perpetrators of Rajiv Gandhi's assassination? You keep on adding random hearsay evidence and conspiracy theories, which is not recognised by anybody. Has Chohan openly claimed Rajiv Gandhi's assassination as per any reliable source? CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Added a source. This source is Jain Commission. Is this not reliable enough? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Where is the link? Also has the Jain commission report been accepted by the Court or not. Anybody can claim anything, it is not considered to be tru unless it is accepted by the court of law. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Read the sources. They have links. Read before removing something. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Kindly add proper sources. Also, don't behave like a court and hold someone guilty of assassination. No court or agency has held khalistani terrorists guilty of Rajiv Gandhi's assassination. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Just because no court has held them guilty does not mean they were not involved. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked for a week. Continuing the edit-war on a different page was a spectacularly bad idea. Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• I'm a bit concerned about this edit [373] where User:CanadianSingh1469 is asking User:Ronnie Macroni to find sources related to Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi on which the former edit warred and was blocked for. Altho, there're no restrictions on such discussions, I'd ask to keep an eye out for possible renewal of edit wars — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Dollismd reported by User:Mbinebri (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Carmen Kass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dollismd (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 04:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) to 04:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
   1. 04:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) "shes fluent in estonian and russian AND english. and proficient in ITALIAN. please get it corrcet.. and what does a fashion model mean...shes not a manequin can you refer her to a model.. stop dog watching her page all day because someonechanges it."
   2. 04:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC) to 01:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
   1. 01:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC) "can you stop reverting what i'm changing..? carmen is fluent in russiann not converstant and stop obsessing over Wikipedia plz like get a life instead of stalking carmen kasses and other models page bc ur pissing everyone off by changing stuff"
   2. 01:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 22:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC) "shes fluent in russian not converstant. shes converstant in Italian only."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Carmen Kass."
2. 02:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Carmen Kass."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Note: I can't offer diff for resolution initiative because my message was the first on their talk page*

User has been edit warring for awhile now over fashion model articles, largely in insisting on using the POV term "supermodel" and automatically reverting any editor who returns the consensus term "model." I tried to engage the person on their talk but have been ignored. On the Kass article, this editor has decided to war over the languages the subject speaks - it's a small thing, but this editor insists on an altered version of sourced content with no new citation and has reverted every return to the original content - including my attempted compromise edit - with edit summaries demanding other users stop reverting them and insulting users as well. Dollismd seems, IMO, to have issues with edit warring, uncivility/not assuming good faith, and ownership of articles. Mbinebri (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Mcdynamite reported by User:Justanothersgwikieditor (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

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

Previous version reverted to: [374]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [375]
2. [376]
3. [377]
4. [378]
5. [379]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [380]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [381]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [382]

Comments:

Borderline personal attacks in edit summaries and while asking other editors to Learn how to respect the editorial ways of other users, failed to do so in the first place.--Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The editor in question was counselled by Justanothersgwikieditor about MOS, but was promptly brushed off in their reply on their talk page. Edit summaries on the article shows that they are evidently not collaborative, and resorting to namecalling and making unsubstantial remarks. – robertsky (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing this article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Claudiogostoso reported by User:Guilherme (Result: Declined)

Page: 2023 Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Claudiogostoso (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. [383]
2. [384]
3. [385]
4. [386]

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: [387]

Comments:

• Guilherme, there are two things you should have tried before reporting this:
  • Adding a formal {{uw-ew}} warning on Claudiogostoso's user talk page
  • Starting a discussion on the article's talk page, Talk:2023 Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras season, and inviting Claudiogostoso to it using a neutral notification message like {{Please see}}
• I won't take action before you have attempted these steps. Also, please don't undo multiple revisions one by one; this fills the revision history with unnecessary entries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit Wat in Spanish Language (Result: Declined as malformed)

Page: Spanish Language

User being reported: User:Kwamikagami

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_language&oldid=1149259671

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_language&oldid=1149259363 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_language&oldid=1149260327

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user is insisting that "Spanish Language" is "cooficial" in Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay. I corrected the map in the article since I am from Peru and I know that the language is official, not cooficial. Even the Political constitution of Peru says: Son idiomas oficiales el castellano y, en las zonas donde predominen, también lo son el quechua, el aimara y las demás lenguas aborígenes, según la ley. which in english means: The official languages are Spanish and, in areas where they predominate, Quechua, Aymara and other aboriginal languages, according to the law. This user is unprivileging my work as editor, as I am correcting an error in the article. And that's not all, I tried to reach a consensus on his talk page but the user doesn't seem to be interested in listening to others. The user continues to insist that the language is "co-official" assuring that I am the one who "does not understand" the meaning of this word. This user is even abusing his power as a moderator by accusing me in my talk page of an edit war, when I have posted an updated map with real information and I tried to explain to him. Please, I am asking to a librarian to review the case. Thank you very much. LordEdurod97 (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Careful of WP:BOOMERANG. The article was stable before you started this, and in any case if the map is wrong, it's the map that needs to be corrected. Many wikipedias use that map, and we wouldn't want to mislead people there. — kwami (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:4754:3100:3D5F:BB46:F526:181B reported by User:Starship 24 (Result: Already blocked; Starship 24 globally locked)

Page: Peter Debbins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:4040:4754:3100:3D5F:BB46:F526:181B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Debbins&oldid=1148885949

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Debbins&diff=1149100950&oldid=1149100249&diffmode=visual
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Debbins&diff=1149102237&oldid=1149102110&diffmode=visual
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Debbins&diff=1148890466&oldid=1148890356&diffmode=visual
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Debbins&diff=1148886627&oldid=1148886534&diffmode=visual
5. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Debbins&diff=1148885949&oldid=1148885911&diffmode=visual

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:

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry wasnt blocked when I started the report @ToBeFree Starship 24 (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Starship 24, I blocked them because of your report, but not for edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you said "already blocked" so I figured that had meant that they were blocked by the time my report was submitted. Sorry . @ToBeFree Starship 24 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Starship 24, no worries. Perhaps that's exactly what the "already blocked" template option was created for, so it might not have been 100% correct of me to use it in this way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Starship 24 locally indeffed and globally locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Saimcheeda reported by User:CastJared (Result: No violation)

Page: Hogwarts Legacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1149345281 by Vestigium Leonis (talk) By all means start a discussion on the talk page if you feel so strongly but I haven't removed anything. I've rearranged the wordings to be easier to read. It seems you simply want your version and are refusing anyone else to alter it. We have already crossed the three-revert rule"
2. 16:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1149341023 by Vestigium Leonis (talk) in what way is that an unconstructive edit? is this an editor or someone who just wants their version to be on the page?"
3. 15:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1149330433 by Vestigium Leonis (talk) unnecessary revert"
4. 12:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Critical response */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hogwarts Legacy."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor was involved within the text, "The review itself received criticism for being politically-focused", but this caused more than three reverts in total. CastJared (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm pinging @Vestigium Leonis for this involvement. CastJared (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2023 (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. Both editors have reverted three times; while it does not seem likely that they will be sitting down and breaking bread anytime soon, as long as they refrain from further reverts of each other (by which we do not mean "start up again tomorrow once the 24 hours have expired". We mean don't do it) they are on the good side of the three-revert rule (which, again, note, does not mean they can't be blocked for edit warring should they resume in the future). The reporter made the all-too-common mistake of including the edit that triggered the war among the reverts (#4 above); as long as that edit is not itself a revert it does not count towards 3RR. And in this case it was not. It is simply the "edit reverted to". Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The named user has stopped the editing after Indagate did a final revert and opened a discussion. As long as it does not continue tomorrow, we should be fine. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Gugrak reported by User:Alltan (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Kosovo Raid (1448) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gugrak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [388]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [389]
2. [390]
3. [391]
4. [392]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [393]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [394]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [395]

Comments:
A user is attempting to force revert an article to a desired version. Said user is simultaneously attempting to have said article deleted. [396].Alltan (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not in breach of 3RR. There's obvious sockpuppetry going on here.Gugrak (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY can be considered a personal attack. Please refrain from further such comments. Alltan (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GermanManFromFrankfurt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gugrak (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor: Not only edit warring, but Gugrak has made personal attacks too, by reverting an editor in good standing like Alltan with an edit summary "RV sock". I have seen Gugrak making frivolous reverts in the past. If you take a look at their editing history [397], their edits are only reverts. Many of them have edit summaries of the kind "No consensus, discuss on the talk page" while Gugrak does not say anything on the talk pages of those articles. It seems to me that in many cases Gugrak reverts only for the sake of reverting, which is the first time I see such a thing in all these years on Wikipedia. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Courcelles (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:72E5:3400:B001:5F30:97FE:D5A reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Blocked)

Page: History of lesbianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:4040:72E5:3400:B001:5F30:97FE:D5A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC) "REMOVED FALSE information. SOMEBODY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO DO PROPER RESEARCH AND KEEPS REPOSTING IMAGES THAT DON'T PERTAIN TO THE TOPIC OF LESBIANISM"
2. 02:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC) "Fixed false information that had no source of evidence. The topic is reported."
3. 02:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) "REMOVED FALSE INFORMATION. IDET AND RIU WERE NOT LOVERS. AND THE PICTURE IS MISLEADING, THERE WAS NO HOMOSEXUALITY IN ANCIENT EGYPT WHATSOEVER."
4. 02:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) "REMOVED FALSE AVE UNSOURCED INFORMATION. NEXT TIME I'M REPORTING THE ENTIRE THREAD FOR FALSE INFORMATION."
5. Consecutive edits made from 00:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) to 00:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
   1. 00:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Ancient Egypt */Fixed fabrication"
   2. 00:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC) "Fixed fabrication"
   3. 00:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Ancient Greece */Fixed typo"
   4. 00:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Ancient Greece */Fixed typo"
   5. 00:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC) "Fixed fabrication"
6. Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC) to 00:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
   1. 00:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC) "Fixed the fabrication"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on History of lesbianism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not sure what this IP is doing as I'm just a drive by editor who happened on this, but I guess they're attempting to erase homosexuality in Ancient Egypt? They seem very insistent on that, too, hence my AN3 report. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours For general disruptive nonsense. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Block extended and article protected for longer than that based on their talkpage behavior. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Talleyrand6 reported by User:Gobonobo (Result: 48 hours)

Page: 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Talleyrand6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1149396511 by Dingers5Days (talk) why are you such a stuck up yes-man for the authorities"
2. 23:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1149396184 by Dingers5Days (talk) please stopp"
3. 23:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1149395177 by Stuart98 (talk) I do not take marching orders from people named Stuart"
4. 23:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1149394372 by 2A00:23C7:D198:7F01:D6F0:E947:2824:9F2F (talk) el bruh momento"
5. 23:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1149392766 by Stuart98 (talk) Bro! Uncool :("
6. 22:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1149389406 by OutlawRun (talk) I think it's funny and cool. Very necessary, actually."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC) "/* "Results by catholic diocese" */ re"

Comments: Look I know it got out of hand but it was literally a single map. 1 map. I get not wanting edit wards but it was literally a single shitpost map. I thought it was a little goofy, a little whimsical, but overall harmless. Starting some administrative process over a single map gives some strong stuck up teacher's pet vibes. I'm fine with apologizing for stoking the fire, but again, this over a single harmless map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talleyrand6 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Textbook example of edit warring, against consensus. Oh, wait, this is a shitpost? Well, I'm also looking at the editor's other work, so who knows, it might become more than 48 hours. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Shitposting in a CTOP area… brilliant. I’ve left a CTOP alert under your block message. Courcelles (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

User:2804:248:fb17:7600:4868:1d7b:eef:aa0 reported by User:Mickie-Mickie (Result: Page protected)

Page: White Terror (Taiwan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2804:248:fb17:7600:4868:1d7b:eef:aa0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [398]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First deletion
2. Second deletion
3. Third deletion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The existing fascism topic, category and sidebar established by other editors through the years have been deleted, though another user Gog the Mild managed to rescue 86 sources between the versions.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The offender has been advised with the article introduction and the Talk page discussion carefully, and also warned with the WP:RVAN violation.

1. Advice on the previous Talk page discussion
2. Notification of WP:RVAN

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [399]

Comments:
The concern had already been discussed by editors in multiple sections on the Talk page in 2022, but the offender lies about the presented facts and analyses, but insists the personal opinion to delete the long-existing content without other editors' consent, yet failed to present any source evidence to support his theory and statement. Please stop his abuse over three times to maintain the article's integrity. Thank you. Mickie-Mickie (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Page protected Given the reversions are likely the same person but different IPv6s, thus seems the most effective for now.Courcelles (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)