User talk:2405:201:A40E:7033:C3B:4ADC:8AD2:9E3C

December 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kurmi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Please stop changing "cultivator" to "agriculturalist", unless you cite a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Kurmi, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have violated WP:3RR, If you persist in edit warring on Kurmi, your IP address will be blocked. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Kurmi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Arjayay (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kurmi. If, as you claim, "Cultivator is a synonym for agriculturist" there would be no reason for you to repeatedly change it from cultivator. However, they are not synonyms. Cultivators are basic manual labourers, working for others. Agriculturalists are farmers who own land, hire cultivators, decide what crops to plant, when and where, etc. I suspect that you know this, which is why you are trying "upgrade" the Kurmi from being cultivators to agriculturists. Please stop - Arjayay (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Relentless edit-warring
Hello May I importune you to take a look at 's edit-warring in the lead of the Kurmi page that Sitush and I wrote a long time ago? Much obliged. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  01:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That IP range has been adding the same text in multiple articles (e.g.,, , ,). Not sure what we can do about this - some articles, like the Kheda district one, are not on anyone's radar. has apparently blocked this IP editor before and may have ideas.--RegentsPark (comment) 22:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like I or any other admin has blocked this IP ... ever. Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Might be a range block (I'm clueless about these things). When you check this IPs contributions, it does say that you've partially blocked the IP (checkuser block). --RegentsPark (comment) 23:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * this IP. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, it was a range block. I am not the admin who initiated that ... I just added to the list of blocked pages because it specifically says the block should not be changed without consulting a checkuser ... I figured that was the most other admins could do. Well, now, we may just have to make it a sitewide block. Daniel Case (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely needed. They're at it again.--RegentsPark (comment) 13:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now they're branching out into other forms of disruption . --RegentsPark (comment) 14:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? I suppose you must be talking about a larger range than 2405:201:A40E:7033:0:0:0:0/64, then, RP, because the /64's contributions are these. I did check the /64, to see if there was other disruption, and I've also saved a pinned tab to keep an eye on them ongoingly. But I'm sorry to say that's as far as my competence goes. Larger IPv6 ranges are above my paygrade. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC).
 * Seems like the /64 could be blocked without collateral damage; are there other IPs that are being disruptive though? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Still going strong--RegentsPark (comment) 12:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * and here. There probably are a lot more that we're missing since the text is not always identical. Someone needs to do a range block soon. If I understood range blocks, I'd do it myself but I don't.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * More and more but I'm not going to overload you with diffs (note the added abuse in the recent one). I don't understand how their IP changes every few minutes? Is this normal? I was under the impression that the internet provider assigns an IP that is stable for at least a few days. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Some ISPs do that. One issue here is that the note on the block says not to change it without consulting a checkuser ... adding more pages to the partial block was the most I felt I could do, and now we've reached the limit. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. could you take a look at how to issue a sitewide range block for these IPs. Thanks!--RegentsPark (comment) 21:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear myself, so I've contacted User talk:NinjaRobotPirate who was the first CU to deal with this. Doug Weller  talk 11:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I did an anon-only range block on Special:Contributions/2401:4900::/33 with account creation left enabled. It stops people from being able to impulsively edit war, but it won't stop them from creating an account to start it up again (obviously). Accounts are easier to block, though. If there are other IP ranges, I guess let me know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)